BENERJEE - (1.) THIS batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by reason of supposed infraction of Article 21, were moved before this Court for the grant of an order for bail in the nature as prescribed under Section 438 Cr. P. Code, and in line with the orders dated 28-3-2000 in W. P. (Crl.) No. 256 of 1999and dated 5-5-2000 in W.P. (Crl.)Nos. 72-75 of 2000 passed earlier by this Court. To crystalize the issue, the orders as passed earlier ought to be noticed at this juncture. The first of the two orders read as below : (JVG Group of Companies : Writ Petition (Crl. No. 256 of 1999) " It is not possible for us to order that all his cases pending in different States should be consolidated into one and brought before one court. That would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on the witnesses and investigating agency spread over to those different States. Nor are we inclined to order the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation in respect of all cases, and further that he would make himself available on any date when his presence is imperatively needed in that court. 3. We permit the petitioner to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the cases pending in different courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one single court or mor than one court (depending upon the number of cases or the width of the area of the State is concerned). 4. THIS order will come into effect only if the petitioner would surrender his passport in this court. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel expressed a doubt that petitioner would have already surrendered his passport before another court pursuant to the order passed. In that case he can satisfy the Registrar General of this Court by an affidavit of the situation and the Registrar General can intimate the jail authorities concerned of that position. 5. We make it clear that it is open to the investigating agency in any case to move for cancellation of bail if any such investigating agency finds that petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by this order. In view of the above order we direct the jail authorities of the jail in which he is presently kept to release him forthwith on Registrar General of this Court intimating the jail authorities regarding the surrender of his passport as indicated above. It is needless to say that this order will not be treated as a precedent and is passed only on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly."
(2.) THIS Court also on a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in Kuber Group of Companies (Writ Petition Nos. 72-75 of 2000 being the 2nd order as noticed hereinbefore) also passed a similar order to the following effect: "1. If the petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal cases in his capacity as managing director/director of JVG Group of companies the arresting officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 2. Such relief shall be made after getting an assurance from him that he will be present in the court concerned on the days when his case is posted. However, we make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to apply to the court concerned for exempting him from personal appearance on condition that a counsel on his behalf would be present on such posting dates and he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in that case, and further that he would make him self available on any date when his presence is imperatively/needed in that court. We permit the petitioner to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the cases pending in different courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one single court or more than one court (depending upon the number of cases or the width of the area of the State is concerned). This order will come into effect only if the petitioner would surrender his passport in this Court. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel expressed a doubt that petitioner would have already surrendered his passport before another court pursuant to the order passed. In that case he can satisfy the Registrar General of this court by an affidavit of the situation and the Registrar General can intimate the jail authorities concerned of that position.
(3.) WE make it clear that it is open to the investigating agency in any case to move for cancellation of bail if any such investigating agency find that petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by this order. AND THIS COURT has further ordered to the jail authorities of the jail in which petitioner/detenues P. K. Sharma S/o Deep Chand Sharma (In Judicial Custody since 4-6-1999), Mrs. Roweena Sharma W/o P. K. Sharma (In Judicial custody since 17-7-1999) and M. M. Sharma, S/o Deep Chand Sharma (In judicial custody since 6-7-1999) confined in Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, to release them forthwith as the condition of surrender of passports have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of Learned Registrar General of this Hon'ble court who has perused the affidavit in this Registry to the above effect. AND THIS COURT has also observed that his order will not be treated as precedent and is passed only on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER THAT THIS ORDER be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned." 3. To put the records straight and complete, be it noted however that these matters were placed before this Court for similar order, but since the Division Bench of two Hon. Judges of this Court delving into the matter, felt some difficulty to lend concurrence to the orders as above, the Bench referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench and in terms therewith, this Bench stands constituted for disposal of this batch of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. 4. Incidentally, several writ petitions have been filed invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by reason of supposed infraction of Article 21 with several identical prayers - the main being grant of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing that in the event the petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal case, the arresting officer shall release him on bail on his execution a bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. As regards the other prayers, we shall defer it presently since the cardinal issue relates to the first prayer. As noticed above, supposed infraction of Article 21 was taken recourse to substantiate the invocation of Article 32. 5. Needless to record that Article 21 of the Constitution postulates that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The expression 'personal liberty' admittedly is of widest possible amplitude and cannot in any way whatsoever be, curbed or restricted without offending the constitutional mandate. The decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan' case (Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 1993 (1) SCC 645) lends concurrence to the observations as above. We are not called upon to deal with the true scope or the total ambit of Article 21. The petitioners have taken recourses to the Article stating therein that in the event they are not granted any relief as prayed for, the petitioners resultantly would suffer the consequences which stand negated by the constitutional mandate.;