Bail should be granted judiciously and not as a matter of course. The seriousness of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and the likelihood of interference with the course of justice are all relevant factors in determining whether bail should be granted.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy), Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), Section 302 (Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 506 (Criminal intimidation), Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), Section 212 (Harbouring offender), Section 216 (Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered) - The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution under these sections to establish the existence of a conspiracy and the accused's involvement in the murder. The court also considered the accused's attempts to interfere with the investigation and threaten witnesses under Section 201 and Section 506.
Fact of the Case:
Amarmani Tripathi, a Minister in the U.P. Government, was having an affair with Madhumita Shukla, a young poetess. Madhumita was shot dead in her house in a conspiracy involving Amarmani and his wife Madhumani Tripathi. The prosecution presented evidence of illicit relationship, pressure to abort pregnancy, and Amarmani's attempt to cover up his involvement. The accused were granted bail by the High Court, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that there was prima facie evidence of a conspiracy involving Amarmani and Madhumani. The court also noted Amarmani's attempts to interfere with the investigation and threaten witnesses. The High Court failed to consider this evidence when granting bail. The court concluded that bail should be cancelled and the accused should surrender.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail should be granted judiciously and not as a matter of course. The seriousness of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and the likelihood of interference with the course of justice are all relevant factors. In this case, there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy and attempts to tamper with evidence and threaten witnesses. The High Court erred in granting bail without considering this evidence.
Result: The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted by the High Court and ordered the accused to surrender immediately. If they fail to do so, the State should take steps to arrest them.

Judgment

ASHOK BHAN, J.- Leave granted.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI aggrieved by the orders dated 29-4-2004 and 8-7-2004 passed by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High 9 Court (Lucknow Bench) in Crl. Misc. Cases Nos. 1402(B) and 1954(B) of 2004 releasing the accused Amarmani Tripathi (Accused 5) and Madhumani Tripathi (Accused 4) on bail has filed these appeals.

3. On 9-5-2003 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 h 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 Mahanagar Police Station, Lucknow. The case was transferred to the Crime Branch, CID on 17-5-2003. On a request made by the State on 17-6-2003, 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 the deceased Madhumita Shukla, a young poetess. This led to Madhumitas pregnancy thrice. On the first two occasions, the pregnancy was aborted at the instance of Amarmani. On the third occasion, in spite of pressure and persuasion by Amarmani, Madhumita refused to abort the pregnancy. The post-mortem revealed a six-month-old foetus in her womb. The DNA test of the foetus established the paternity of Amarmani.

5. Madhumani Tripathi, the 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 husbands relationship with Madhumita and requested him to help her to

d teach a "lesson" to Madhumita. Rohit Chaturvedi, therefore, introduced one Santosh Rai as a person who could 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. Government, he 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 fieldagainst the six accused, namely, (1) Santosh Kumar Rai @ Satya Prakash (2) Prakash Chandra Pandey @ Pappu (3) Rohit Chaturvedi (4) Madhumani Tripathi (5) Amarmani Tripathi, and (6) a Yagya Narain Dixit. On the date of filing of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1239

Bail should be granted judiciously and not as a matter of course. The seriousness of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and the likelihood of interference with the course of justice are all relevant factors in determining whether bail should be granted.

Cases Referred (12)