Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 651

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Rohit Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl. No. 8935 of 2023) (@Diary No(s). 40947 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal Nos. 2079-2080 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3445-3446 of 2023)
Decided On : 24-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajan Chawla, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Asad Alvi, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Ms. Saba A.k. Patel, Adv. Mr. Hamid Irfan, Adv. Mr. B. S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Chand, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Ms. Meetu Goswami, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Goswami, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Nishant Bishnoi , AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal.
(2) Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case.

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 – Order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal – While considering application for grant of bail, prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of nature of crime, criminal antecedents of accused and nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis offence/s alleged against accused. (Paras 18, 19 and 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Bail – Grant of – Challenge as to – Murder charge – It is not necessary for Court to assign elaborate reasons or engage in a roving inquiry as to merits of prosecution’s case while granting bail, particularly, when trial is at initial stages and allegations against accused would not have been crystallised as such – However, Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case – In present case, it cannot be said that accusations against respondents-accused are prima-facie wholly false, frivolous or vexatious in nature, so as to justify grant of bail – High Court while passing impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of case – High Court was not right in allowing applications for bail filed by respondents-accused – Impugned Judgments passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 26)
© Latin maxim – “Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” – Reason is soul of law and when reason of any particular law ceases, so does law itself”. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred by the informant-appellant assailing the judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 16016 of 2021, 4265 of 2022 and 4823 of 2022, whereby, bail has been granted to respondents-accused herein, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Findings of Court:
Respondents-accused are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Nagarathna, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals have been preferred by the informant-appellant assailing the judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 16016 of 2021, 4265 of 2022 and 4823 of 2022, whereby, bail has been granted to the respondents-accused herein, namely, Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi respectively, in connection with First Information Report (“F.I.R.” for short) No. 134 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for the sake of brevity) and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the brother of one of the deceased, namely, Vikash Panwar and is the informant who lodged F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 against four persons, including three of the respondents-accused herein.

4.1. F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 dated 18 May, 2020 is stated to have been filed by the appellant herein between 2.45 hours and 2.55 hours in the night stating that his elder brother, Vikash Panwar, aged 25 years at the time had been in an extra marital live-in-relationship with Nirma @ Gudia, since three months, who was also married to Shrawan Jani and had two children from the said marriage. That unhappy about the said extra marital live-in-relationship, the parents and parents in-law of Nirma had been threatening to kill appellant’s brother, Vikash Panwar.

4.2. That Budharam and Vikas Vishnoi, Nirma’s brothers, Shrawan Jani, Nirma’s husband and Ram Kishor, Nirma’s brother-in-law were threatening the informant’s brother by way of calls and WhatsApp messages.

4.3. That on 17 May, 2020 at around 12.15 p.m., the informant’s nephew informed him telephonically that a video of his brother, Vikash getting shot was being circulated on social media. The incident was stated to have occurred at Nayapura Mandore area and on receiving the said information, the informant and his father reached the said area and found Vikash Panwar lying on the ground, dead, with blood oozing out from around his ribs.

4.4. That upon inquiry, the informant got to know that the four accused hereinabove named had come on two motorcycles and dragged Vikash who was purchasing vegetables. Thereafter, they had shot at him, causing his death.

5. Earlier, on 18 February, 2020, Meera Devi had filed F.I.R. No. 81 of 2020 in Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur stating therein that the deceased-Vikash Panwar had kidnapped her daughter-in-law, Nirma.

6. On 24 February, 2020, Nirma filed F.I.R. No. 88 of 2020 against her brother-in-law and parents-in-law for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 376 of the IPC, stating therein that her brother-inlaw repeatedly raped her and that she was being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial household.

7. In connection with F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020, respondent-accused, Budharam was arrested on 22 May, 2020 while respondents-accused, Rajendra Bishnoi and Vikas Vishnoi were arrested on 30 May, 2020 and remanded to judicial custody.

8. After conducting the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahanagar, Jodhpur, on 19 August, 2022 against eight accused including the respondents-accused herein. Respondent-accused, Budharam was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, while respondents-accused, Rajendra Bishnoi and Vikas Vishnoi were charged for offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC.

9. Respondent-accused, Vikas Vishnoi preferred an application seeking regular bail before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahanagar, Jodhpur. The same was dismissed by an Order dated 10 November, 2021.

10. Application seeking regular ba