2021 (10) TMI 1438 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the order passed for Grant of bail to the second Respondent - Offence punishable u/s 307 IPC - Consideration of the seriousness and gravity of the crime - Role attributed to the second Respondent - Parity with co-Accused Vijaypal - Change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail - HELD THAT - The charge-sheet contains an analysis of the call data records. Apart from the material drawn from the call data records, it has been found during the course of the investigation that in order to purchase the fire arms for the crime, Ratan Singh, the husband of the second Respondent, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to Prahlad. Prahlad had brought three katas and ten cartridges. The weapons were kept in a room by Anek Singh at Bharatpur in which the second Respondent was residing on a rental basis. Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second Respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased (Daansingh) to the killers. There has been an evident error on the part of the High Court in surmising that no specific or overt act is attributed to the second Respondent. As regards the co-Accused Vijaypal, it has been submitted that during the course of the investigation he was not found to be present at the scene of the offence and was not charge-sheeted. In deciding as to whether the fifth bail application of the second Respondent should be allowed, the High Court has failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role which is attributed to the second Respondent. The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose. The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications. There was no change in circumstances. In this backdrop, the High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second Respondent and, as noted, having proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the High Court has been duly established. Following the decisions laid down in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT , Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Koli 2021 (4) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT and for the reasons we have indicated, the impugned order granting bail is unsustainable. The High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second Respondent. The High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act has been assigned to the second Respondent. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. Thus, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Fifth Bail Application. The application for bail filed by the second Respondent shall consequently stand rejected. The second Respondent shall surrender on or before 7 November 2021.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the second Respondent.
2. Consideration of the seriousness and gravity of the crime.
3. Role attributed to the second Respondent.
4. Parity with co-Accused Vijaypal.
5. Change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail.

Summary:

1. Grant of Bail to the Second Respondent:
The appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 August 2021 by a Single Judge at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, which allowed the fifth bail application of the second Respondent. The High Court noted that the second Respondent had been in custody for three years and ten months, is a female, no overt act is assigned to her, co-Accused Vijaypal was granted bail, there was a variance in the prosecution story, and the trial conclusion would take time.

2. Consideration of the Seriousness and Gravity of the Crime:
The Appellant argued that the High Court erred by not considering the gravity of the crime. The second Respondent was alleged to have been in constant contact with co-Accused Prahlad and her son Anek, both involved in the crime. The High Court had previously noted that the second Respondent was not cooperating in the investigation.

3. Role Attributed to the Second Respondent:
The High Court's observation that no overt act was assigned to the second Respondent was erroneous. The charge-sheet indicated that the second Respondent used multiple sim cards to stay in touch with the sharp-shooter and was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime. The investigation revealed that she actively aided the crime by providing information about the deceased's movements.

4. Parity with Co-Accused Vijaypal:
The Appellant contended that no parity could be claimed with co-Accused Vijaypal since he was not charge-sheeted. The High Court failed to consider this distinction while granting bail to the second Respondent.

5. Change in Circumstances Warranting the Grant of Bail:
The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications, and there was no change in circumstances to warrant the grant of bail. The seriousness and gravity of the crime, along with the specific role attributed to the second Respondent, were not adequately considered by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to consider relevant circumstances and proceeded on an erroneous basis. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment granting bail was set aside. The second Respondent was directed to surrender on or before 7 November 2021. The observations made were solely for the purpose of considering the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case or the pending trial.