Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Hariram Bhambhi – Appellant
Versus
Satyanarayan and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2021
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 201, 406 and 498A - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 173, 161 and 439(2) - SC/ST Act - Sub-Sections (3) (5) of 15A and 14(A)(2) - Offence of murder - Causing disappearance of evidence - Falsely implicated - Demand statutory minimum wages - Alleged that deceased had gone with her brother who had obtained an insurance policy in the name of deceased and it was brother-in-law of deceased, who had committed the murder with help of his friends - Appellant lodged a report at Police Station District on basis of which FIR offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Penal Code was registered - Appellant stated younger brother had gone out for carrying out labour work - Appellant was informed by his mother that evening was away to meet his brother-in-law, and that he would not return for day - Spouse informed appellant that her brother in a vehicle - Local residents informed appellant that dead body of Ram Niwas was thrown out of a vehicle at a specified place in area of Police Station - Investigation commenced on basis of report lodged by the appellant- Appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter - Wife of deceased Smt. (PW-2) in her statement recorded during trial has stated that deceased went with her brother co-accused who he has taken insurance policy in the name of her husband and he also purchased the trailer on being financed in name of her husband and for taking amount of insurance policy committed murder of her husband with help of his friends - Counsel submits that no allegation has been levelled by her in statement against appellant and appellant is behind bars - Held, Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. contains a detailed analysis of call data records of accused who were in continuous contact with each other, as well as of their location in close proximity to the date and time of incident - Bail order does not make any mention of factors that are relevant for grant of bail, which are (i) seriousness and gravity of offence and (ii) the role attributed to first respondent in commission of crime - High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster - Single Judge of the High Court by impugned order simply reiterated that bail was granted on the basis of statement of wife of the deceased, PW-2, once again failing to show any engagement with considerations that govern grant of bail - Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that Section 15A(3) and (5) are mandatory in nature, requiring notice to victims/dependents and allowing them to be heard at bail proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It finds that the High Court committed a violation by not issuing notice to the appellant under Section 15A(3) before granting bail, and that compliance cannot be cured later during cancellation proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that bail orders must contain reasoned judgments addressing factors such as the seriousness of the offence and the accused’s role, not merely rely on statements or omnibus conclusions (!) (!) (!) . - The Court sets aside the High Court’s bail order and remands to surrender on a specified date, stressing that rights of victims/witnesses under 15A cannot be bypassed or retroactively cured (!) (!) . - It cites the protective purpose of the SC/ST Act and the mandatory nature of rights conferred to victims and witnesses in bail-related proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It reiterates that non-compliance with 15A(3) invalidates bail orders and cannot be remedied by subsequent hearings in cancellation proceedings (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 9 June 2018, the appellant lodged a report at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer on the basis of which FIR No. 116/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code was registered. In his complaint, the appellant stated that on 8 June 2018, his younger brother Ram Niwas had gone out for carrying out labour work. The appellant was informed by his mother that evening that Ram Niwas was away to meet his brother-in-law, Kishan Lal and that he would not return for the day. On 9 June 2018, Ram Niwas’s spouse informed the appellant that her brother Kishan Lal had taken Ram Niwas in a vehicle at about 3.00 o’clock. The local residents informed the appellant that the dead body of Ram Niwas was thrown out of a vehicle at a specified place in the area of Police Station Kishangarh. Investigation commenced on the basis of the report lodged by the appellant. Since the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891 [“SC/ST Act”] were added. The first respondent was arrested. On 6 September 2018, a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure2 [“Cr.P.C.”] was submitted by the Investigating Officer against Kishan Lal and three other accused of which the first respondent was named as A-4.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail by the Sessions Court, the first respondent moved the High Court of Rajasthan seeking enlargement on bail3 [S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1132/2019]. The complainant was represented by counsel, notice having been given to him under Sub-Sections (3) and (5) of 15A of the SC/ST Act. The appeal was withdrawn on 8 August 2019.
4. On 25 September 2019, the first respondent instituted an application4 [Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1253/2019] before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention Cases) Ajmer for the grant of bail. The application for bail was rejected by the Special Judge by an order dated 25 September 2019. The Special Judge noted that the statements of five witnesses PW-1 Suresh, PW-2 Smt. Aaram Devi, PW-3 Hari Ram, PW-4 Ramshankar and PW-5 Gokul Singh were recorded, but certain crucial witnesses were yet to be examined. Consequently, the second bail application submitted by the first respondent was rejected. The first respondent instituted an appeal5 [S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2518/2019] before the High Court against the rejection of a second application for bail. No notice was issued to the appellant under the provisions of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act.
5. On 7.11.2019, the High Court heard arguments in appellate proceedings6 [S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2518/2019] when it was submitted by counsel for the first respondent that PW-2, the wife of the deceased, had stated that the deceased had accompanied his brother-in-law (co-accused Kishan Lal), who had taken an insurance policy in the name of the deceased and that it was Kishan Lal who had committed the murder with the help of his friends to obtain the proceeds of the insurance policy. After recording the above submission of the first respondent, the High Court enlarged the first respondent on bail by its order dated 7 November 2019. The order of the High Court reads thus:
2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that the wife of the deceased Smt. Aaram Devi (PW-2) in her statement recorded during trial has stated that the deceased went with her brother co-accused Kishan Lal who he has taken insurance policy in the name of her husband and he also purchased the trailer on being fi
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
