1. Murder and disappearance of evidence — Complaint under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against grant of bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 219
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Kamla Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022
With
Kamla Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail – Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case.
(2) Reason is soul of law – When reason of any particular law ceases, so does law itself.
(1) Grant of bail – Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case.
(2) Reason is soul of law – When reason of any particular law ceases, so does law itself.
Subject
Bail - Grant of Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding grant of bail are: (i) seriousness of offence; (ii) likelihood of accused fleeing from justice; (iii) impact of release of accused on prosecution witnesses; (iv) likelihood of accused tampering with evidence – If a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its discretion – Order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal – It is not necessary for Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when case is at initial stage and allegations of offences by accused would not have been crystallised as such – There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing order on application for grant of bail – However, Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case such as allegations made against accused; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; frivolity in case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused; and prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. (Paras 22, 23 and 26)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Murder case – Offences alleged against respondents-accused are of grave nature – Possibility of accused threatening or otherwise influencing witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out – Court not inclined to hold that prosecution has not established a prima facie case as to guilt of accused – It is not a fit case for grant of bail to respondents-accused, given seriousness of allegations against them – High Court while passing impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of case – High Court has granted bail to respondents-accused by passing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 27, 28 and 29)
(C) Maxim – “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” – Reason is soul of law – When reason of any particular law ceases, so does law itself. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred by the appellant who is wife of the deceased, Sohan Singh, challenging orders dated 9th September, 2019 and 17th October, 2019, passed by High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 10473 of 2019 and 11546 of 2019 respectively, whereby bail has been granted to the two accused, , Kishor Singh @ Kishan Singh, who is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 and Kalu Singh who is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2022, in connection with FIR No.229 of 2019, registered at Police Station Bhim, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
Findings of Court:
Respondents-accused are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :H. D. Thanvi, Achal Singh Bule, U .N. Goyal, Rishi Matoliya, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manish Singhvi, D. K. Devesh, Harsh Singh Rawat, Mehul M. Gupta, Kiran Bala Dewangan, Jhingan Ashwani Omprakash, Y.P. Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :H. D. Thanvi, Achal Singh Bule, U .N. Goyal, Rishi Matoliya, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manish Singhvi, D. K. Devesh, Harsh Singh Rawat, Mehul M. Gupta, Kiran Bala Dewangan, Jhingan Ashwani Omprakash, Y.P. Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges bail grant as cryptic and ignoring crime severity; respondents contend false implication and lack of prima facie evidence of murder. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. High Court granted bail via cryptic orders without considering the gravity of the offence, risk of witness tampering, or the prima facie evidence of murder. (Para 21 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Bail orders passed in a mechanical, casual, or cryptic manner without recording reasons or applying mind to material facts are illegal and liable to be set aside. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned bail orders set aside — Bail bonds cancelled — Accused directed to surrender. (Para 29 , 30 )
6. What factors must a court balance when deciding a bail application?
The primary considerations include the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of release on prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. (Para 22 )
7. What is the legal consequence of granting bail through a cryptic or mechanical order?
An order granting bail in a mechanical manner without recording reasons suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal and liable to be set aside by a higher court. (Para 23 , 24 )
8. Is a detailed examination of merits required at the bail stage?
While a court need not conduct an elaborate discussion on merits or a detailed examination of evidence at the pretrial stage, it cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case, such as the severity of punishment and prima facie satisfaction of the charge. (Para 14 , 26 )
9. Can bail be challenged if the original grant was perverse or ignored material aspects?
Yes, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, an appeal may be preferred on the ground that the order was perverse, illegal, or arrived at by ignoring material aspects establishing a prima facie case against the accused. (Para 29 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant who is the wife of the deceased, Sohan Singh, challenging orders dated 9th September, 2019 and 17th October, 2019, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 10473 of 2019 and 11546 of 2019 respectively, whereby bail has been granted to the two accused, namely, Kishor Singh @ Kishan Singh, who is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 and Kalu Singh who is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2022, in connection with FIR No.229 of 2019, registered at Police Station Bhim, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that appellant is the wife of the deceased. She is stated to be the person who lodged a missing person report on 14th May, 2019 stating therein that the deceased, Sohan Singh, aged 48 years, had on 13th May 2019 left their residence to attend the marriage ceremony of one Sawai Singh and was expected to return by 2.00 a.m. the next morning. When the deceased did not return home, the appellant assumed that he may have continued to stay at Sawai Singh’s house. However, when she inquired the next morning, Sawai Singh informed her that the deceased had left the marriage ceremony the previous night itself.
The appellant further stated in the missing person report that she had a suspicion that the respondents-accused herein in connivance with their mother, Teji Devi, had in some manner caused harm to her husband.
3. That a First Information Report, being FIR No. 229 of 2019 dated 15th May, 2019 came to be lodged, at the instance of the son of the deceased, stating that the deceased was returning to his house after attending the marriage function of Sawai Singh, the nephew of the deceased. The deceased was last seen outside the house of the three accused, namely Kishore Singh alias Kishan Singh, Kalu Singh, who are the two respondents-accused herein and Teji Devi who is the mother of the respondents-accused. That three passersby had disclosed to the informant-son of the deceased that they saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased on the night of his death. One Nath Singh had informed the complainant that he had seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased outside their house and subsequently dragging the deceased into their house, wherein he was assaulted and murdered. The dead body of the deceased was dragged by the accused and thrown into a well nearby.
4. Report of the postmortem examination conducted on 15th May, 2019 recorded that the deceased had died as a result of “cardiopulmonary arrest due asphyxia and venous congestion.” The report further stated that the deceased was drowned following his death and that the hyoid bone of the deceased appeared to be fractured. Final report as to cause of death was reserved, to be finalised based on the report of the forensic science laboratory.
5. A charge sheet was submitted by the police on 9th July, 2019, against the three accused persons, before the Court of the District Judge, Rajsamand, Rajasthan, for charges under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”). The charge-sheet has recorded that on the night of the incident, the deceased had at about 2.00 a.m. knocked on the door of Teji Devi. She informed her sons, Kalu Singh and Kishan Singh, the respondents-accused, of the same. The respondents-accused who were on the roof of their house, jumped down and attacked the deceased with lathis, with an intention to murder him. After the deceased was killed, all three accused dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw it in a well nearby, together with the lathi used to cause his death.
The matter was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, Rajasthan for trial.
6. The respondents-accused were arrested on 23rd May, 2019, in connection with FIR No. 229 of 2019 and were sent to judicial custody. They remained in judicial custod
