The two cases may have little in common but it’s the Pappu Yadav case that has so far been the main legal barrier to the Kanchi Shankaracharya’s efforts to secure bail.In his first bail application before the Supreme Court filed today, more than a month after his arrest, the seer argues that the apex court’s ruling in March in Yadav’s case does not apply to him.That ruling, delivered by Justice Santosh Hegde nine months ago, cancelled the bail granted to Yadav by the Patna High Court. This verdict was cited before the Madras High Court by counsel for Tamil Nadu police K T S Tulsi to argue that the High Court had no scope to grant bail to the Shankaracharya as there were apparently ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ for believing that he was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.Under Section 437(1)(i) of the CrPC, a Magistrate cannot grant bail in cases involving offences such as murder. Under Section 439, the High Court has more latitude. Tulsi, however, interpreted the SC verdict cancelling Yadav’s bail to mean that the High Court’s discretion was restricted by the embargo on bail imposed by Section 437(1)(i).Shankaracharya’s counsel I Subramanian asserted that Justice Hegde’s verdict could not be construed to have laid down that the powers conferred on the High Court by one provision were curtailed by another as that would amount to ‘‘the court legislating the law which is impermissible.’’Even otherwise, the judgment in Yadav’s case, Subramanian argued, was not a ‘‘binding precedent’’ for others and applied only to the peculiar facts related to the political leader.In the event, Justice R Balasubramanian of the Madras High Court ruled on December 8 that the judgment in Pappu Yadav’s case was very much a binding precedent and that the apex court could not be said to have ‘‘legislated any law but only declared the law relating to bail based on the existing provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.’’Rejecting the seer’s bail application for the second time, Justice Balasubramanian accepted the Tamil Nadu police’s contention that the High Court’s power under Section 439 is ‘‘subject to the restrictions’’ contained in Section 437(1)(i).The legal battle on the interpretation of the judgment in Pappu Yadav’s case has now shifted to the Supreme Court as the seer’s latest bail application repeats the argument that Section 439 cannot be affected by Section 437(1)(i).Coincidentally, Jayendra Saraswathi’s bail application referred to Yadav the very day the SC directed the CBI to find some jail where the controversial RJD leader would not be able carry on with the illegalities he was committing in Beur Prison.
