Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 95

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad)
M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Ishwarji Nagaji Mali – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. R. Vishnu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Lochab, Adv. Mr. Vivek Mishra, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice are crucial considerations in deciding bail applications.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy to Kill Wife - IPC 302, 120(B), 114, 304A, Motor Vehicles Act 177, 184, 134 - The court quashed the order of the High Court releasing the accused on bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife for monetary benefits. The High Court's decision was based on the circumstantial evidence and the accused's deep roots in society.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court erred in releasing the accused on bail without considering the material collected during the investigation and the seriousness of the offence. The court emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case and the gravity of the accusations in deciding bail applications.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of evidence, the seriousness of the offence, and the proper application of legal principles in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the charge, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice are crucial factors in deciding bail applications. The court also highlighted the need for brief reasons to justify the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order granting bail, and directed the accused to surrender within a week. The court emphasized that the observations made in the judgment were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail question, and the trial court should proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented by both sides.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9390 of 2021, by which the High Court has directed to release respondent no. 2 (accused) on bail in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No. I - 11195008201056 of 2020 with Bhildi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 114, 304A of the IPC and under Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the father of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.

2. The incident in question took place on the morning of 26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. when respondent no. 2 herein along with his wife, Daxaben (deceased) left their home in Deesa to visit Hanumanji Temple at Gela village and on their way at around 07:00 a.m. while they were walking, the deceased was hit by a speeding four-wheeler (while coloured Swift Desire) from behind and which immediately fled away. That one Sevantibhai Ranchhodji Tank, cousin of respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR against unknown persons initially for the offences punishable under Sections 304A IPC and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of the story narrated by respondent no. 2 that his wife was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking together.

2.1 That during the course of the investigation and considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation and making analysis of the call details between respondent no. 2 and his friend Kirtikumar Kanaji, it was revealed that respondent no. 2 hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the other co-accused to kill his wife by giving Rs. 2 lakhs to the driver of the Swift Car for hitting the deceased from her back and planned to treat the offence as an accident in collusion with each other. An application was made by the Investigating Officer to add the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC. By order dated 6.2.2021, the learned Magistrate permitted the Investigating Officer to also add the aforesaid offences against the accused. Thereafter on conclusion of the detailed investigation and after recording the statements of as many as 40 persons/witnesses and having obtained the call details between respondent no. 2 and the co-accused, respondent no. 2 and other co-accused have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC.

2.2 That respondent no. 2 filed a regular bail application before the learned Sessions Court. By a detailed order dated 19.05.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar rejected the said bail application. That thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9390 of 2021 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail.

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed the said application and has directed to release respondent no. 2 on bail by observing in clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph 4 as under and without adverting to the material collected during the course of the investigation and without considering the seriousness of the offence and the criminal conspiracy hatched by respondent no. 2 to kill his wife for monetary benefits. The observations made in clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph 4 read as under:

(v) The applicant has deep root in the society, no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with the evidence/witnesses is expressed.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing to release respondent no. 2 on bail, the father of the deceased has preferred th