1. Murder charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC — Alleged assault and setting fire to a person — Appeal against grant of bail. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma & S.P. Bharucha, JJ.
State of Orissa - Appellant
versus
Rajendra Prasad Bharadia & Anr. – Respondents.
Crl. Appeal No. 341 of 1994
Decided on 13.5.1994
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant - U.R. Lalit.
For the Respondents - Rajinder Singh & Ram Jethmalani.
Advocates:
A.K.PANDEY, LATA KRISHNAMURTHY, Rajinder Singh, RAM JETHMALANI, S.K.Gambhir, S.K.JAIN, U.R.Lalit
A.K.PANDEY, LATA KRISHNAMURTHY, Rajinder Singh, RAM JETHMALANI, S.K.Gambhir, S.K.JAIN, U.R.Lalit
The court held that the decision to grant bail depends on the cumulative effect of various circumstances. In cases of heinous crimes, the gravity of the offense, strong prima facie evidence (such as dying declarations), and the nature of the dispute outweigh the perceived low 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 weak evidence and lack of risk of tampering. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The High Court's reasoning regarding the remote risk of witness tampering was inadequate given the heinousness of the crime and the cumulative evidence. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Grant or refusal of bail depends on the cumulative effect of various circumstances rather than any single factor. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order granting bail set aside — Respondents directed to surrender and bail bonds cancelled. (Para 11 )
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 possesses universal validity or necessarily justifies the grant or refusal of bail. (Para 10 )
7. Does the absence of risk of witness tampering automatically justify the grant of bail in heinous crimes?
No. While the risk of tampering is a factor, it is not the sole consideration. In cases of gruesome and heinous crimes, other factors like the strength of prima facie evidence and the nature of the offense must be considered cumulatively. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. How should dying declarations and witness statements be weighed during bail applications?
While the evidentiary value of dying declarations is fully determined at trial, they contribute to the cumulative effect of circumstances used to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of granting or denying bail. (Para 2 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
S.P. Bharucha, J. - Leave granted.
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 S.DJ.M., 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 Bazar 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."
2. 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 17th February, 1993, alleging that at about 7 p.m. on that day he had heard he cries of a woman from the premises of the Central Flour Mill at Naya Bazar 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 a fire. 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 23rd April, 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 bum 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 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. Through a number of persons had witnesses the incident and statements of many of them have been recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., none of the occurrence witnessed 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 as
saulted. The dying declaration made by the deceased which is concededly the only incriminating material against the petitioners have been made in presence of Doctors in the Hospitals where the deceased received treatment, 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.
3. It may be noted for the completeness of the record that the brother of the deceased Bina, namely, Raghabendra Bharadia, had filed an application un
