2018 (9) TMI 2023 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Bail granted - participation in Conspiracy to murder the deceased - powerful person who can possibly tamper the evidence - offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 25(1)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act, as also Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act - HELD THAT - The High Court proceeded to grant bail to the Respondent on the ground that there is no prima facie material against the Respondent to establish his involvement in the conspiracy to murder the deceased, that the undated letter of the deceased addressed to the police showing apprehension to his life cannot be treated as a dying declaration; the material on record does not indicate any motive on the part of the Respondent to conspire towards the commission of murder in question, and that the confessions of the co-accused cannot be made used of against the Respondent at this stage, inasmuch as they are admissible only to the extent that they lead to recoveries Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the investigation is yet to complete and trial is yet to begin, it would not be proper for us to dwell upon the subject matter in detail at this stage, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties during trial. However, prima facie, it is brought on record by the State that there was severe animosity between the deceased and the Respondent, as is evidenced by the fact that at one point an intervention by the district administration was necessitated to keep the peace. The statement of the family members of the deceased discloses that the Respondent had given death threats to the deceased - A recovery of weapon has been made pursuant to the statement made by the co-accused. The Respondent has serious criminal antecedents, having five criminal cases registered against him, out of which two cases involve charges Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and three under the Explosive Substances Act. However, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court that in one matter, the Respondent has been acquitted. Since the Respondent is a powerful and influential person in his locality, the investigating officer apprehends that he may influence the witnesses by intimidating them and if the Respondent continues to remain at large, his presence may influence the trial by creating fear in the minds of the witnesses. Since the Respondent is an influential person in his locality, in terms of both money and muscle power, there is a reasonable apprehension that he might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, which is still going on qua some of the co-accused in the case, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The High Court in observing that there was no possibility of the Respondent's absconding in light of his being a local businessman, not only completely overlooked his past attempt to evade the process of law, but also overlooked the implications of the clout enjoyed by him in the community. The impugned judgment of the High Court granting an order of bail in favour of the Respondent herein is liable to be set aside - Respondent Mahimananda Mishra, S/o Late Rabindranath Mishra, R/o Odia Bazar, P.S. Dargha Bazar, District Cuttack (Orissa), be taken into custody forthwith - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Granting of bail to the respondent based on lack of prima facie evidence in a murder conspiracy case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Bail Application: The State of Orissa and the de-facto informant challenged the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondent orchestrated the murder of Mahendra Swain due to business rivalry, supported by evidence such as recovered weapons and a letter expressing fear for the deceased's life.

2. Investigation Findings: The police investigation revealed that the respondent fled to Thailand to avoid arrest, indicating a potential flight risk. The State argued that the respondent, being powerful and influential, might intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice, impacting the trial proceedings.

3. Legal Arguments: The State contended that the respondent's release on bail could hinder the case's progress, as witnesses may be reluctant to testify against a powerful individual. Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that there was no evidence of witness tampering or absconding post-bail, suggesting no basis for continued custody.

4. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's bail decision, emphasizing the need to consider factors like the gravity of allegations, likelihood of fleeing from justice, and potential witness tampering. The Court highlighted the importance of not delving into the merits of the case but focusing on the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.

5. Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, citing concerns about the respondent's influence, past attempts to evade the law, and the potential for interference with the ongoing investigation and trial. Consequently, the respondent was ordered to be taken into custody, emphasizing the significance of preserving the integrity of the legal process in serious criminal cases.