Mamta & Anr. vs The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

24 May 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No 878 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Bela M. Trivedi

Citation

[2022] 3 S.C.R. 548 : 2022 INSC 626

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered – Allegation of murder of young child for ransom against the second respondent – Grant of bail by the High Court – Propriety of – Held: Exercise of discretion by the High Court not proper – While granting bail, the High Court failed to take into consideration that crucial witnesses were yet to be examined, that release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would impede a fair trial, and that there was an apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered – Thus, the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside – Issuance of direction to the trial judge to conduct the trial expeditiously. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The High Court while granting bail, failed to notice the crucial aspects which has bearing on whether or not a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section

439 of CrPC was established. Since the trial is presently underway, this Court is not entering upon a discussion of the material which has emerged during the course of the investigation, and during the course of the trial. However, an important circumstance which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role which has been attributed to the second respondent and the crucial witnesses which remain to be examined. The exercise of the discretion by the High Court is improper. Thus, the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside. The second respondent to surrender forthwith. Since the trial is pending since 2014, the trial judge is directed to conduct the trial expeditiously. [Paras 10-12][551-G-H; 552-A-D]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from an order dated 2 March 2022 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No 196 of 2022. 3. The second respondent is facing trial in connection with FIR No 894 of 2014 dated 18 November 2014 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District East Delhi. Following the submission of the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code o

View Subscription Plans →