Munilakshmi vs Narendra Babu & Anr.

Held: This Court has a narrow scope of interference in an order granting bail while exercising its power of judicial review and will be invariably reluctant to interfere in such order even if it has a different opinion – Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 on one hand and the right of the orderly society, on the other – The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration is drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that will ensure that a fair and free trial is not hampered – However, if it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail – In the present case, the Appellant (mother of the Deceased) was vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking cancellation of bail given to Respondent No.1 – In her examination-in-chief, she specifically named Respondent No.1 as the main conspirator in the murder of her daughter – However, the sudden change of stance shown by the most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief cannot be a mere coincidence – Therefore, appellant’s sudden somersault, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of influencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life – Respondent No.1 has the potential to influence the investigation or the witnesses – There is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses – Impugned order set aside, bail granted to Respondent No.1 cancelled – Further directions issued inter alia for providing security to the appellant and her family till their fresh depositions – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 142 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34. [Paras 19, 20, 25, 32] Bail – Misuse of concession of bail – Duty of Courts: Held: Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings – Where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfied that there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession of bail, it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of justice to withdraw such concession forthwith. [Paras 21, 22]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Recalling witnesses: Held: The unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial – This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only u/Article 142 but also u/s.311, CrPC, be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto – Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding – A person can be called and examined though not summoned as a witness, or can be recalled, or re-examined so as to throw light upon the imputations – Constitution does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused – The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth – In the present case, the family members of the Deceased are the most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the prosecution – Their stand in the examination-in-chief is diametrically opposite to the one in the cross-examination – Parents and sister of the Deceased resiled from their earlier standpoint where they were agitating vigorously before different forums since the year 2019 – Present is a case fit for recalling the witnesses PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 (the mother, sister and father of the Deceased) for their further cross-examination to reach an effective decision in the subject trial – Constitution of India – Article

142. [Paras 28, 29]

Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice – Role of witnesses:

Held: Witnesses play a very vital role in bringing justice home, especially in the adversarial system of court trials where the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by bringing persons acquainted with the facts before the courts of justice – Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law – If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered. [Para 26]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Exercise of power under:

Held: Power to recall witnesses u/s.311 ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession of bail. [Para 31]

Words and Phrases – “cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail” – Discussed – Bail. [Para 23] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994]

6 Suppl. SCR 69; Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2021) 15 SCC 518; Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529 : [2016]

8 SCR 936 – relied on.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013]

14 SCR 713; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011] 13 SCR 309; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES