2022 (5) TMI 1507 - SCH - Indian Laws

Murder - Criminal Conspiracy - scheduled offences - examination of witnesses - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner has been in custody for 6 years. We do not intend to comment on the merits of the case which might be detrimental to the interest of either the prosecution or the defence. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 6 years and even if 50% of the remaining witnesses are given up by the prosecution, the trial will not complete soon, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's bail application dismissal by High Court, charges of kidnapping and murder, lengthy custody period, arguments for and against bail, comparison with co-accused's bail conditions, influence on witnesses, seriousness of the offense.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's order dismissing the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner was accused of kidnapping her daughter with intent to murder and being involved in a criminal conspiracy leading to murder. The petitioner, wife of a co-accused, allegedly committed the murder due to her daughter's live-in relationship. The petitioner had been in custody for over 6 years, with a large number of witnesses yet to be examined in the trial.

The petitioner's counsel argued for bail citing the prolonged custody, special dispensation under Section 437 Cr.P.C., and previous instances of accused persons being granted bail after long periods in custody during trial. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General opposed bail, pointing to evidence implicating the petitioner and the risk of witness interference. The prosecution indicated willingness to give up 50% of remaining witnesses to expedite the trial.

The Supreme Court, considering the petitioner's lengthy custody and the potential trial delay even with fewer witnesses, granted bail. The Court imposed conditions similar to those of the co-accused previously granted bail, including surrendering the passport, not influencing witnesses, attending trial regularly, and refraining from contact with witnesses. The Court emphasized that the bail grant did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition, allowing the petitioner's release on bail with specified conditions. The judgment balanced the petitioner's custody duration, trial progress, and the seriousness of the charges while ensuring safeguards to prevent witness interference.