Bail: Grant of – Correctness of – On facts, 60 year old women accused of murder of village sarpanch – Case of previous enimity between accused and the victim – Four previous bail application rejected – Fifth bail application granted by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused – High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis that no specific or overt act attributed to the accused – Also, there was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned order granting bail is
unsustainable. The High Court failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent. The High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no specific or overt act has been assigned to the second respondent. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside and the application for bail filed by the second respondent is rejected. [Para 19, 20][199-B-D]
1.2 The final report under Section 173 of the CrPC indicates that the investigation has revealed that the second respondent was using as many as four sim cards and was in touch with one of the sharp-shooters who was hired to commit the crime; and that she was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the rental premises where she resided. The charge-sheet contains an analysis of the call data records. Apart from the material drawn from the call data records, it has been found during the course of the investigation that in order to purchase the fire arms for the crime, the husband of the second respondent, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to P, who had brought three katas and ten cartridges. The weapons were kept in a room by AS in which the second respondent was residing on a rental basis. Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased to the killers. As regards the coaccused, it has been submitted that during the course of the investigation he was not found to be present at the scene of the offence and was not charge-sheeted. [Para 12, 15][194-C-D; 196-C-E]
1.3 The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case under s. 307 of the IPC and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose. The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications. There was no change in circumstances. In this backdrop, the High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second respondent and, having proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the High Court has been duly established. [Para 16][196-F-H] Anil Kumar yadav v State(NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118;
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana Koli (2021) 6 SCC 230; Harjit Singh v
Inderpreet Singh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 633 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.