2005(4) Crimes 58 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Ashok Bhan & R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
State through C.B.I. —Appellant
versus
Amarmani Tripathi —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2005
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3503 of 2004)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of 2005
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 769 of 2005)
Decided on 26-9-2005

Important pointGeneral rule that Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere in the matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Bail—State appeal against order granting bail—Deceased was killed pursuant to a conspiracy involving respondent accused and his wife—Victim was killed by two accused in her house by country made pistol fired from close range—High Court granted bail by impugned order primarily taking a view that confessional statement of co-accused, more so, when retracted could not be made foundation for establishing guilt of accused —High Court further found that illicit relationship between respondent accused and deceased, DNA test report showing that respondent accused was father of six month old foetus in womb of deceased could only give an inference that conduct of respondent accused was immoral—Appeal—Matters to be considered in an application for bail—General rule that Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail was subject to exceptions where there were special circumstances and when basic requirements for grant of bail were completely ignored—Material collected by prosecution disclosed prima facie the existence of a conspiracy to which respondent accused were parties—Contention that confessional statement of co-accused should be excluded from consideration for purposes of bail was untenable—Conduct of respondent accused from day of murder was in trying to interfere, distract and mislead the investigation and to threaten and coerce witnesses—High Court failed to deal with vast material which indicated that accused, at all material times, tried to interfere with course of investigation—Written complaints with investigating agency showing that after his release on bail accused tried to threaten witnesses—High Court gravely erred in granting bail to accused—Respondent No.2 accused, wife of respondent No.1, though had not been attributed with any such acts as were attributed to respondent accused her husband, leaving her to remain outside, she might take over the task of tampering the evidence—Order allowing bail to accused were liable to be set aside.

       Held : It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. (Para 18)

       The general rule that this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court. (see Pawan vs. Ram Prakash Pandey - 2002 (9) SCC 166; Ram Pratap Yadav vs. Mitra Sen Yadav - 2003 (1) SCC 15 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan - 2004 (7) SCC 528. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. An examination of the material in this case, set out above, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, disclose prima facie, the existence of a conspiracy to which Amarmani and Madhumani were parties. The contentions of Respondents that the confessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi is inadmissible in evidence and that should be excluded from consideration, for purpose of bail is untenable. (Paras 20 and 21)

       The evidence collected above discloses that there were repeated attempts by the accused Amarmani to interefere, and side track the investigation and threaten the witnesses to come out with a story that will deflect the suspicion from him and his wife to Anuj Mishra or others. It is also not in dispute that Amarmani was on bail in a kidnapping case, when he indulged in these activities in May, 2003. These materials were placed by the prosecution before the High Court to establish a reasonable apprehension of tampering. The learned Single Judge has, however, completely ignored these materials relating to tampering with evidence/witnesses. This necessitates interference with the order of the High Court. (Para 23)

       The High Court has failed to deal with the vast material placed by the CBI which clearly indicated that the accused has, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case. The statement of Anil Aggarwal, SSP Lucknow is revealing and in our opinion the High Court on this statement alone should have rejected the bail and, in any event, it is sufficient to allow the present appeal. A senior police officer has stated that the accused asked for his help against his implication in the case. The accused asked the officer not to preserve the foetus and that the body should be taken to her native place for the last rites. The officer also speaks about his being rebuked by senior bureaucrats for recovering the foetus. It is relevant to note that the officer was sought to be misled by the accused by giving false information about a marriage between Anuj Mishra and the deceased. But for his diligence, the foetus would not have been preserved. For doing his duty diligently, the officer was punished with a transfer out of normal course. The very fact that a senior police officer could be transferred out of Lucknow on 17th of May, 2003, clearly shows the amount of influence wielded by the accused. Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi, the first investigating officer who had also refused to tow the line of the accused was also transferred on the same date. Likewise, Mr. Beni Singh Verma, Inspector of Police, CB-CID and Mr. Dinanath Mishra, Inspector of Police, CB-CID were also transferred. S/Sh. N.V. Sirohi, Mr. Vishwa Bhushan Singh, Mr. Sahab Rashid Khan were also transferred but their transfer orders were quashed by the High Court later on. (Paras 25 and 26)

       In the present case, we find that the High Court has granted bail being of the opinion that the extra judicial confession given by Rohit Chaturvedi one of the co-accused may not stand the test of scrutiny by a judicial mind but that by itself was not sufficient to grant the bail. There is voluminous evidence collected by the CBI to show the involvement of Amarmani Tripathi, and his effort to interfere with the investigation of the case before the grant of bail and also after the grant of bail. He tried to change the course of investigation by creating false evidence of the marriage of Madhumita with Anuj Mishra with the help of Yagya Narain Dixit, a police officer, the 6th accused who died in an accident during the course of investigation. There are written complaints with the investigating agency showing that after his release on bail Amarmani Tripathi tried to threaten as well as win over Nidhi Shukla, sister of the deceased, and her mother by offering bribe. In our opinion, the High Court gravely erred in granting bail to Amarmani Tripathi in such circumstances. The High Court practically failed to consider/take into consideration the voluminous evidence which had been collected by the investigation agency and have been referred to by them in their statement of objections to the application for grant of bail. It is true that the position of Madhumani is somewhat different from the case of her husband. While her husband is a politician and ex-Minister, she is no doubt a house wife. While her husband has several criminal cases against him, she has no such record. While there is material to show attempts by her husband to tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses, there is nothing to show that she made any attempt to tamper with the evidence. But there is material to show that she had absconded for several months and surrendered only when bail was refused to her husband on the ground that she was absconding. Further when the matter is considered in entirety, with reference to the murder of Madhumita and the propensity of the husband and wife to pressurize and persuade others to act according to their wishes there is reasonable ground for apprehension that if her husband alone is taken into custody; leaving her to remain outside, she may take over the task of tampering the evidence and manipulating/threatening witnesses. Therefore, interference is called for even in regard to the bail granted to Madhumani. (Para 30 and 31)

       Result : Appeal allowed.