Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, BV Nagarathna, JJ.
Shri Mahadev Meena - Appellant
Versus
Raveen Rathore and Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4072 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Charge-sheet submitted for offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120B of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v), SC/ST Act, 1989 – Order of High Court contains serious infirmities – FIR contains specific allegations against first respondent in respect of his proximity to wife of deceased; deceased having objected to first respondent visiting their marital home and directing him to cease doing so; and call data records and WhatsApp messages exchanged between first respondent, deceased and co-accused – First respondent himself being an employee of Anti-Corruption Bureau, likelihood of evidence being tampered with and of witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted – At this stage, when Court is called upon to evaluate whether a case for grant of bail has been made out, it is inappropriate to enter upon matters which would form subject of trial when evidence is adduced by prosecution – Bail was granted to co-accused primarily and substantially on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail – This cannot be basis to a claim of parity on part of first respondent – First respondent cannot claim parity with co-accused since allegations in FIR and material that has emerged from investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to him in murder of deceased – High Court was in error in allowing application for bail – Consideration that twenty-five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined must equally be weighed with seriousness of crime, role attributed to first respondent and likelihood of evidence being tampered with if first respondent were to remain on bail during course of trial – Impugned order of High Court enlarging first respondent on bail set aside. (Paras 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment dated 12th February 2021, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at the Bench at Jaipur by which the first respondent has been enlarged on bail. The appellant is the father of the deceased at whose behest the first information report was registered.
Findings of Court:
High Court ought to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime. The deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. The first respondent is an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. The material which has emerged during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or glossed over (as the High Court has done).
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 12 February 2021, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at the Bench at Jaipur by which the first respondent has been enlarged on bail. The appellant is the father of the deceased at whose behest the first information report1[“FIR”] was registered.
2. The appellant’s son was a Senior Technical Officer with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. On 21 January, 2011, he got married to Anita Meena, who is a co-accused implicated in his murder. The couple had two young children aged 6 years and 4 months. The relationship of the couple is alleged to have encountered difficulties. On 14 February 2018, the deceased travelled from New Delhi to Ramgajmandi from where he boarded a train at 1800 hours for Jhalawar where his home was situated. Between 7:30 and 8.00 pm, the appellant received a phone call that his son had been found in an unconscious state near Railway Crossing Puliya and was declared brought dead at the hospital. On 14 February 2018, the appellant submitted a written intimation to the SHO Jhalawar on the basis of which, Merg Report No.04/2018 was registered by the police. On 15 February 2018, the post-mortem was conducted by a Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent of BRS Hospital, which reported that the right lung, liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. The remarks of the Medical Officer indicated that the viscera was preserved for chemical and histopathological examination and a final opinion regarding the cause of death would be furnished after receiving those reports. On the same day, an unnatural death was registered under the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[“CrPC”[ with UD No.0004/2018 at the instance of the appellant. On 28 February 2018, samples of the viscera obtained during the post-mortem were sent to the Medical College Jhalawar and Forensic Science Laboratory3[“FSL”], Jaipur, for examination.
3. On 5 March 2018, the appellant submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar for the registration of an FIR. No action having been taken on the basis of the application, the appellant submitted a written complaint on 9 March 2018 to the CJM, Jhalawar, who ordered an investigation. On 10 March 2018, the histopathological report was received from the Department of Pathology, Jhalawar Medical College and SRG Hospital which indicated that the lungs of the deceased showed signs of congestion and pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018, FIR No.69/2018 was registered by PS Jhalawar Sadar under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code4[“IPC”]. The contents of the FIR, which was registered at the behest of the appellant, indicate that:
(ii) Six months after his marriage, the appellant’s son was selected for appointment with the Intelligence Bureau while his spouse was working as a teacher with the Panchayat Samiti;
(iii) Together, the deceased and his spouse had purchased a house at Jhalawar behind Jhalawar’s housing board colony through the first respondent who was working with the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Jhalawar;
(iv) The couple had two children aged 6 years and 4 months;
(v) The deceased had proceeded to Ramganjmandi on 14 February 2018, and thereafter for Jhalawar by train. Between 7.30 and 8.00 pm, his body was found about 30 meters away from the railway crossing culvert. The house of the deceased is behind a housing board colony, which is about 500 meters away from the railway station. The body was taken by his brother-in-law to Jhalawar SRG Hospital where he was brought dead;
(vi) The homicidal death of the appellant’s son had occurred as a result of a conspiracy to murder him and previously on 5 January 2018, an attempt had been made to kill him while he was on his way from Jhalawar to Ramganjmandi;
(vii) While the first respondent was working as a constable in the Anti-Corruption B
Bail cannot be granted to accused without having due regard to seriousness and gravity of crime.
(1) Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail, as in case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution, is not unstructured.(2) Parity while granting bail must ....
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice when deciding on....
The cancellation of bail granted to an accused will have an impact on the bail granted to co-accused also.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
