2012 (10) TMI 1114 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of bail - The appellant lodged a complaint in respect of murder of the deceased against respondent 2 herein and five others. which was registered under Sections 147 148 149 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC ). By the impugned order the Rajasthan High Court released the accused on bail. The appellant has challenged the said order. From the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code it prima facie appears that there was illicit relationship between the accused and Deceased. It appears to be the case of the investigating agency that the accused eliminated the deceased with the help of his companions. HELD THAT - The impugned order granting bail to accused is quashed. The police are directed to take accused in custody. The trial court is directed to frame charges within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The trial court is further directed to proceed with the case and conclude it at the earliest independently and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by us which may touch merits of the case as they are merely prima facie observations. The appeal is disposed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in releasing the accused on bail.
2. Whether the principles guiding the grant of bail were properly applied.
3. Whether the accused's brother, an IPS officer, exerted undue pressure on the investigating officers.
4. Whether the High Court considered all relevant evidence before granting bail.
5. Whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in releasing the accused on bail:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to release the accused on bail, arguing that the court ignored established principles guiding the discretion to grant bail. The appellant contended that the High Court overlooked crucial evidence collected by the investigating agency and failed to provide reasons for releasing the accused, despite the existence of a prima facie case against him.

2. Whether the principles guiding the grant of bail were properly applied:
The Supreme Court noted that the principles for granting bail include considering the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, the position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses. The Court referred to previous judgments, such as Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., and Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat, highlighting that bail can be cancelled if the order granting it is based on irrelevant materials or ignores relevant evidence.

3. Whether the accused's brother, an IPS officer, exerted undue pressure on the investigating officers:
The appellant and the State's counsel argued that the accused's brother, an IPS officer, was trying to exert pressure on the investigating officers. The Supreme Court was shown an extract from a station diary and an affidavit from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, confirming that the accused attempted to influence the investigation. The High Court did not consider this fact, which was a significant oversight.

4. Whether the High Court considered all relevant evidence before granting bail:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to discuss the statements of key witnesses, Kuldip Prajapati and Rita, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These statements indicated the accused's involvement in the crime. The High Court's order lacked an explanation for releasing the accused on bail, which was a serious infirmity.

5. Whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled:
The Supreme Court emphasized that cancellation of bail is a serious matter and can be justified if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities. The Court found that the High Court's order was arbitrary and ignored relevant material, making it legally untenable. The accused's involvement in a heinous crime and the potential adverse impact on the trial warranted the cancellation of bail.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order granting bail to the accused, directing the police to take him into custody. The trial court was instructed to frame charges within one month and conclude the trial at the earliest, independently and in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →