1. Appeal against grant of bail in a case involving charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, concerning the killing of a person by fire. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 567
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)
STATE OF ORISSA
Versus
RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARADIA AND ANOTHER
Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1994{From the Judgment and Order dated 26-7-1993 of the Orissa High Court in Crl. Misc. Case Nos. 1271 and 1283 of 1993} , decided on May 13, 1994
Advocates appeared
U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate (A.K. Panda, Advocate, with him) for the Appellant;
Rajinder Singh, Senior Advocate (S.K. Jain, Advocate, with him) for the Complainant.
Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate (Ms Lata Krishnamurthy and S.K. Gambhir, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
The grant of bail depends on the cumulative effect of various circumstances, including the heinousness of the crime, the strength of the prima facie case (such as dying declarations and witness statements), and the overall facts, rather than relying on a single factor like the risk of witness tampering.
Headnote:Constitution of India 1950 Art. 136 - Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302/34. Deceased set on fire and she received 90% burns on her body. There was a dispute between deceased, her father and brother on one hand and respondents on the other and - Deceased made dying declaration - There was no risk of winning over of witnesses or tampering their evidence, as reasons given by High Court while allowing bail to respondents, was not adequate to released respondents on bail. Statement of two security men u/s.164 Cr. P.C. and the fact that deceased was set a fire within the premises of mill and heinousness of the crime are facts that bail ought not to have been allowed. Order allowing bail set aside. (Para 11)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contends strong prima facie case based on dying declarations and witness statements; defense argues evidence is weak and no misuse of liberty occurred. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. The High Court's reasoning regarding the low risk of witness tampering was inadequate given the heinousness of the crime and the cumulative incriminating evidence. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. Grant or refusal of bail depends on the cumulative effect of various circumstances rather than any single factor. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and bail cancelled with directions for the respondents to surrender. (Para 14 )
6. What factors determine the grant or refusal of bail?
The decision to grant or refuse bail depends on the cumulative effect of a variety of circumstances. No single circumstance can be treated as having universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. (Para 11 )
7. Is the fact that incriminating evidence is recorded by professional witnesses sufficient to eliminate the risk of witness tampering for bail purposes?
No. The court held that the mere fact that incriminating material, such as dying declarations, was recorded in the presence of doctors, lawyers, and police officers is not an adequate reason to release an accused on bail in a heinous crime. (Para 12 )
8. How does the court evaluate the necessity of denying bail in cases of heinous crimes?
The court considers the cumulative effect of evidence, including dying declarations, witness statements under Section 164 CrPC, the nature of the dispute, and the cruelty and heinousness of the crime to determine if bail should be denied. (Para 13 )
Judgment
S.P. BHARUCHA, J.- Leave granted.
2. This appeal, filed by the State of Orissa, impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa allowing the release of Rajendra Prasad Bharadia, the first respondent, and Purakh Chand Chandak, the second respondent, "on bail of Rs 50,000 (fifty thousand) each with two local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, Cuttack, subject to the further conditions that they shall personally appear in court on each date on which the case is posted; they shall not leave Calcutta without Courts permission excepting for appearing in the case till the trial is over; they shall report at Lal Bazaar Police Station, Calcutta, every fortnight on Sunday and they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court".
3. The two respondents along with eight others are charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 33 of 1993. The case was instituted on the first information report lodged by Bijoy Mohapatra on 17-2-1993, alleging that at about 7 p.m. on that day he had heard the cries of a woman from the premises of the Central Flour Mill at Naya Bazaar and that on reaching that spot he had heard that Smt Bina Jhawar, daughter of Kali Prasad Bharadia, had been assaulted by Rohit Chandak, his employees and others and that they had poured some liquid upon her and set her afire. The High Court noted that an earlier application for bail filed by the respondent Purakh Chand Chandak during the stage of investigations had been dismissed on 23-4-1993. The principal case against the respondents rested upon the dying declarations said to have been made by the deceased Bina. Considering the same and apposite judgments, the High Court stated:
"The tenor of her statements is that Rohit Chandak, the petitioners and several other persons physically assaulted her and poured some liquid on her body and Rohit Chandak set fire to her body due to which she sustained burn injuries. As the medical reports show, the deceased had sustained 90% burns on her body. Whether the dying declarations in the present case will be accepted as true and if so its evidentiary value and the weight to be attached to it can appropriately be considered at the trial of the case, but as the position stands at present the two petitioners have been named as assailants by the deceased in the dying declarations made by her from time to time. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. But this is not conclusive of the matter, as held by the Apex Court. The other relevant circumstances are to be considered.
The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted. Though a number of persons had witnessed the incident and statements of many of them have been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, none of the occurrence witnesses has directly implicated the petitioners in the incident relating to assault on the deceased and setting her body ablaze. They have, however, generally stated about presence of the petitioners on the mill premises during the other incident which is said to have taken place at about 3 p.m., about four hours before the incident in question in which the mother of the deceased was assaulted. The dying declaration made by the deceased which is concededly the only incriminating material against the petitioners have been made in the presence of doctors in the hospital where the deceased received treatment, (sic) her lawyers and police officers. Therefore, the apprehension of risk of winning over such witnesses or tampering with their evidence is remote."
Upon this basis the High Court passed the order aforementioned.
4. It may be noted for the completeness of the record that the brother of the deceased Bina, namely, Raghabendra Bharadia, had filed an application under Section
