2023 (10) TMI 1367 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking cancellation of Regular Bail granted - gross misuse of concession of bail - sufficient material gathered by the prosecution to indicate the involvement of Respondent No. 1 in a criminal conspiracy hatched for killing his wife or not - HELD THAT - The unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial. This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only under Article 142 of the Constitution but also under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto. Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. A person can be called and examined though not summoned as a witness, or can be recalled, or re examined so as to throw light upon the imputations. Section 311 CrPC, of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused. The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth. In the case at hand, the family members of the Deceased are the most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the prosecution. Their stand in the examination inchief is diametrically opposite to the one in the cross- examination. The fact that the parents and sister of the Deceased have resiled from their earlier standpoint where they had been found to be agitating vigorously before different forums since the year 2019, implores us to invoke our Constitutional powers under Article 142 read with Section 311 CrPC and direct their recalling for a fresh cross examination after ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of threat, psychological fear, or any inducement. This is a case fit for recalling the witnesses (PW 1, PW 4 and PW 5) for their further cross examination to reach an effective decision in the subject trial. The impugned order dated 12.08.2020 is set aside and the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 is hereby cancelled - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail to Respondent No. 1.
2. Alleged harassment and criminal conspiracy by Respondent No. 1.
3. Subsequent events and complaints post bail.
4. Legal principles guiding the cancellation of bail.
5. Ensuring a fair trial amidst witness hostility.

Summary:

1. Grant of Regular Bail to Respondent No. 1:
The criminal appeal arises from an order dated 12.08.2020 by the High Court of Karnataka granting regular bail to Respondent No. 1 in trial proceedings numbered S.C. 1111/2021. The trial emanated from Crime No. 151/2019 registered under various sections of the IPC.

2. Alleged Harassment and Criminal Conspiracy:
The marriage between Vinutha M. and Respondent No. 1 faced issues due to alleged extra-marital affairs and harassment by Respondent No. 1 and his family. Multiple FIRs were lodged against Respondent No. 1 for various offenses, including attempts on Vinutha M.'s life. On 21.12.2019, Vinutha M. was found dead, leading to the registration of another FIR. A final report accused Respondent No. 1 of conspiring to kill his wife by hiring others to assault her fatally.

3. Subsequent Events and Complaints Post Bail:
The Appellant challenged the bail granted to Respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the proceedings, complaints were received against Respondent No. 1 for allegedly misusing the bail concession. The trial court faced issues with the presence of key witnesses, who later turned hostile during their cross-examination.

4. Legal Principles Guiding the Cancellation of Bail:
The Court considered the principles guiding the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that bail can be withdrawn if there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse. The Court noted that the sudden change in the stance of key witnesses and the history of allegations against Respondent No. 1 suggested his potential to influence the investigation or witnesses.

5. Ensuring a Fair Trial Amidst Witness Hostility:
The Court stressed the importance of a fair trial and the role of witnesses in the criminal justice system. It acknowledged the reasons behind witnesses turning hostile, including threats and inducements. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses for further cross-examination in a secure environment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2020, cancelled the bail granted to Respondent No. 1, and directed him to surrender within one week. The Trial Court was instructed to recall key witnesses for further cross-examination, and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru was directed to provide security to the Appellant and her family and investigate any threats or inducements faced by them. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.