Appeal: Murder case – Complainant’s appeal against release of accused by High Court – Appellant-original complainant and her aunt and one another are the eye witnesses who have identified the accused in Test Identification Parade(TIP) – The entire incident was captured/recorded in the CCTV footages and the mobile phone – During the course of the investigation, the punchnama of the place of the incident was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded; test identification of the accused was carried out; CCTV footages and DVR from the place of incident were recovered – Pipe and the belt used in commission of the crime were recovered – Judgment of High Court releasing the accused on bail – Held: Not unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law – Deceased was brutally beaten by the accused and despite that and without considering the seriousness of the offences alleged and despite the statements of the eyewitnesses, High Court released the accused on bail in a most perfunctory and casual manner – High Court did not at all consider the gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge sheet – In such a serious matter and looking to the gravity of the offences and considering the statements of eyewitnesses and that the entire incident was recorded in the CCTV footages and the mobile phone, the High Court has committed grave error in releasing respondents No.1- accused on bail.
Bail: Cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings – There are different considerations while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions etc., and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing the accused on bail.
Administration of criminal justice – Release of accused in murder case – Non filing of appeal by prosecution – Held: State ought to have preferred appeals challenging the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail – It is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book – It was the duty of the Director of prosecution to take prompt action which he failed to perform.
Administration of justice – In criminal matters – Director of Prosecution – Role of – Held: It is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned – Director of Prosecution is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers u/s.25A CrPC – That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in s.25A(2) CrPC, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.25A.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the settled preposition of law, cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings. There are different considerations while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions etc., and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing the accused on bail. Once, it is found that the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled. [Para 9.4][25-H; 26-A-B]
2. By not filing the appeals by the State against the impugned judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a serious matter, the State has failed to protect the rights of the victim. This was the fit case where the State ought to have preferred the appeals challenging the orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. [Para 11][26-E-G]
3. In the State there is a Director of Prosecution. Even the Director of Prosecution has failed to perform his duties in the instant case. The post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take prompt decision. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial. He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That his crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. [Para 11] [26-G-H; 27-A-B]
4. The submissions on behalf of the State that it takes time to take a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not is not acceptable. The State ought to have been very serious even to maintain the rule of law in a serious matter like this where a person was brutally murdered/killed while he was just collecting scrap outside the factory with his wife and aunt. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution and the State to ensure that the guilty are booked and punished. [Para 11][27-C-D]
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.