Bail – Grant of – When justified – Appellant’s daughter got married to respondent no.2 but thereafter went to live at appellant’s place due to social non-acceptance of the marriage by family members of respondent No.2 – Subsequently, Respondent No.2 planned a trip with his wife, to New Delhi/Leh, who died during the course of their journey as the car they were travelling in allegedly met with an accident – FIR registered by appellant u/ss. 498-A, 302 and 120-B IPC – State Government transferred the case to CBI – Respondent no.2 was arrested but granted bail by High Court – On appeal, held: No doubt, the offence with which respondent no.2 is charged is a serious one, however, that by itself cannot be the ground to outrightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail – It is not disputed that after the incident, appellant, other family members as well as some doctors who were close to the family had arrived and post mortem was conducted in their presence but nobody nurtured any suspicion – FIR was lodged nine days after the incident – Further, evidentiary value of reports of CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL and IIT relied on by appellant are yet to be tested, more so, when these reports are given on the basis of studies undertaken much after the incident – Impugned order is a speaking order – Reasons given by High Court for granting bail to respondent no.2, cannot be termed as perverse – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498-A, 302 and 120.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the limited scope of interference with an order granting bail and keeping in mind the parameters on which such an order can be interdicted, the reasons given by the High Court to grant bail to respondent No. 2, cannot be termed as perverse. The High Court kept in mind the relevant factors while considering the bail application. No doubt, the offence with which respondent No. 2 is charged is a serious one. That by itself cannot be the ground to outrightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. The High Court has discussed those factors. No doubt, the appellants have extensively referred to the reports of CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL and IIT. Their evidentiary value is yet to be tested, more so, when these reports are given on the basis of studies undertaken much after the incident. Report of AIIMS is based on the photographs and not on the basis of postmortem of the body of the deceased. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 has made a submission that AIIMS has not given any conclusive opinion. According to him, same is the position qua other reports as well. These reports are not to be examined in depth at this stage as that exercise has to be done by the trial court when these reports are proved by the makers of the report and they are cross-examined thereupon. Moreover, in a criminal case where respondent No. 2 is charged of committing murder, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish, beyond reasonable doubts, that the death of appellant’s daughter was the result of a murder and that it is respondent No. 2 who committed the said murder. His defence about alleged accident is only one of the factors that would be looked into as to whether such a story put forth by him is correct or not and the effect thereof. The High Court has taken into consideration relevant factors while granting the bail to respondent No.2. The impugned order is also a speaking order with reasons. [Paras 13, 14][370-G-H; 371-A, E-G]
1.2 It was not disputed that after the incident, the appellant, other family members as well as some doctors who were close to the family had arrived. Postmortem was conducted in their presence. At that stage, nobody nurtured any suspicion. FIR was lodged nine days after the incident. The material collected by the CBI during investigation is documentary in nature which are given on the basis of photographs produced before them and had to be tested during trial. [Para 15] [372-G-H] Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2016)
15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165 – held inapplicable.
ANR.
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2018)
3 SCC 22 – relied on.
Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015)
7 SCC 178 : [2015] 1 SCR 721; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC
694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – 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.