Important point
General rule that Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere in the matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court.

Headnote:
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 437, 439(2) Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Bail in Murder case - Accused and his wife held for conspiracy to murder - Accused a politician and an Ex-Minister - Bail granted by High - The High Court has failed to deal with the vast material placed by the CBI which clearly indicated that the accused has, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case- Principles laid down ; 1) The Court must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether prima facie case was established against the accused. 2 )-Seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration-. 3 )A balance has to be drawn by the Court to protect fair trial and to secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in a heinous crime -4) If there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically looses all its purpose and significance to the great prejudice and the interest of the prosecution- 5 )The jurisdiction to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case. - 6 )While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with- High Court wrongly granted bail being of the opinion that the extra judicial confession given by one of the co-accused may not stand the test of scrutiny by a judicial mind but that by itself was not sufficient to grant the bail Order of the High Court set aside and bail cancelled ( paras 17 to 21 )
B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 437, 439(2) Bail granted in murder case - Appeal for cancellation of bail - In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant- But in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under Section 439 read with Section 437, continue to be relevant- While considering and deciding appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. But they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case of applications for cancellation of bail.( para 13 )
C. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 - Grant of bail - Factors to be considered - It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail ( PARA 14 )
D. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Bail in serious offences like murder etc. -Factors to be considered :-
1 )Court must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether prima facie case was established against the accused. - 2 )Seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration. 3 )That a balance has to be drawn by the Court to protect fair trial and to secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in a heinous crime 4 ) The ground to deny bail will be when by testing the balance of probabilities it appears that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice.5 ) Once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tempering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the victim and also create problems of law and order. ( para 18 )
E. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Bail in Murder case - Not necessary to go into detailed examination of evidence and documentation of the merit of the case -Court to see reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence. 2004(2) RCR(Crl.) 254 (SC) relied.[Para 18]
F. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 439 - Law with regard to grant or refusal of stated :-1) JUDGMENT Where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, sthe post bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. 2 ) The general rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored -3 ) While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary.( para 11 and 15 )

Judgment

Bhan, J.—Leave granted.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI aggrieved by the orders dated 29th April, 2004 and 8th July, 2004 passed by a Single Judge of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1402(B)/2004 and No. 1954(B)/2004 releasing the accused Amarmani Tripathi (Accused No. 5) and Madhumani Tripathi (Accused No.4) on bail have filed these appeals.

3. On 9th May, 2003 Madhumita Shukla was shot dead in her house located in Paper Mill Colony by two persons who were later on identified as Santosh Kumar Rai and Prakash Chandra Pandey. Investigation in the case revealed that Madhumita Shukla was killed pursuant to a conspiracy involving Amarmani Tripathi and his wife Smt. Madhumani Tripathi, Nidhi Shukla lodged a Report in regard to the blind murder of her sister Madhumita Shukla on 9.5.2003 in the Mahanagar Police Station, Lucknow. The case was transferred to Crime Branch, CID on 17.5.2003. On a request made by the State on 17.6.2003, the CBI took over the investigation.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Amarmani Tripathi, a Minister in the U.P. Government, at the relevant time, was having an affair with deceased Madhumita Shukla, a young Poetess. This led to Madhumita’s pregnancy thrice. On the first two occasions, the pregnancy was aborted at the instance of Amarmani. On the third occasion, inspite of pressure and persuasion by Amarmani, Madhumita refused to abort the pregnancy. The post-mortem revealed a six month old foetus in her womb. D.N.A. test of the foetus established the paternity of Amarmani.

5. Madhumani Tripathi, wife of Amarmani, was upset when she learnt about the illicit intimacy between Amarmani and the deceased. She made several calls to the deceased and her family members to threaten and abuse them. During the end of March, 2003 Madhumani Tripathi informed one Rohit Chaturvedi (cousin of Amarmani) that she was troubled by her husband’s relationship with Madhumita and requested him to help her to teach a ‘lesson’ to Madhumita. Rohit Chaturvedi, therefore, introduced one Santosh Rai as a person who can help her. Madhumani told Santosh Rai that Madhumita should be finished, whatever be the expense.

6. On 14.4.2003 when Rohit Chaturvedi came to Lucknow, Madhumani asked him to instruct Santosh Rai to do the work assigned to him without delay. On the same evening Rohit Chaturvedi informed Amarmani that Bhabhi Madhumani wanted Madhumita to be eliminated. Amarmani told Rohit that it may be done taking care to see that his name was not linked to the incident. He also stated that being a Minister in the U.P. Govt., shall protect them. Amarmani was no longer interested in Madhumita as she was becoming a nuisance and he had found other interests. Amarmani felt that if Madhumita gave birth to the love-child, it could adversely affect his image as a politician and Minister and also cause problem in his family.

7. Madhumani kept on pressing Rohit to get the work done. On 1.5.2003 Madhumani told him that all limits have been crossed and action should be taken immediately. Madhumani rang up Rohit several times to tell Santosh Rai to do her work and Rohit passed on the message to Santosh Rai. Santosh Rai met Madhumani in this connection on 5.5.2003. Santosh Rai assured Rohit that the work will be done within 2 to 4 days. In pursuance of it, on 9.5.2003 Santosh Rai along with Prakash Pandey went to the house of Madhumita and shot her with a country made pistol (katta) from close range, resulting in her death.

8. According to the prosecution, the murder of Madhumita was a result of the conspiracy among Madhumani, Amarmani, Rohit Chaturvedi, Santosh Rai and Prakash Pandey. Amarmani was arrested on 23.9.2003. On 19.12.2003 a charge-sheet was filed against six accused, namely, (1) Santosh Kumar Rai @ Satya Prakash, (2) Prakash Chander Pandey @ Pappu, (3) Rohit Chaturvedi, (4) Madhumani Tripathi, (5) Amarmani Tripathi and (6) Yagya Narain Dixit. On the date of filing of the chargeshe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1243

Important pointGeneral rule that Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere in the matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court.

Cases Referred (12)

Important point
General rule that Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere in the matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court.