The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna held that as per the settled preposition of law, cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings. There are different considerations while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions etc., and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing the accused on bail. Once, it is found that the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled.
Facts
As per the case of the prosecution, the original complainant – appellant herein, her aunt and her husband (deceased) went to collect scrap from the open space outside a factory. When they were picking scrap on the backside of the factory area, five persons (accused) came there and started abusing them and thereafter initially started beating all three of them outside the factory. Thereafter the five accused tied the husband of the original complainant to the gate of the factory and started beating him. As per the case of the prosecution the original complainant and her aunt were asked to leave. They left and thereafter informed their relatives and friends and when they returned, they found her husband unconscious and seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
Procedural History
A FIR was registered against the five accused including respective respondents No.1 herein for the offences u/s 302, 114, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135, 37(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation all the accused persons (five in numbers) came to be charge sheeted for the offences u/s 302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 having committed the murder of the deceased. Respondent No.1 herein moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Court seeking release on bail, which came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, respondent No.1 – accused preferred present Criminal Appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has released respondent No.1 – original accused on bail in connection with the aforesaid case. By subsequent judgment and order in another Criminal Appeal another accused has been released on bail mainly considering the fact that co-accused has been released on bail and also by observing that so far as the said accused except the fact that he was found standing near the place of incident there is no further material against him.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court releasing respective respondents No.1 on bail, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
Contentions made
It was submitted for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not materially appreciated but erred in releasing the accused on bail in a case where the husband of the complainant was murdered brutally. The High Court while releasing the accused on bail, has not at all considered the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused and on the grounds which are not tenable the High Court has released accused on bail.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the coaccused and has requested not to cancel bail after a period of two and a half years.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“The High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the chargesheet. We refrain from making further observations on merits as the trial is going on. Suffice it to say that in such a serious matter and looking to the gravity of the offences and considering the statements of eyewitnesses and that the entire incident has been recorded in the CCTV footages and the mobile phone, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the respective respondents No.1 – accused on bail. The judgments and orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail are unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law.
Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that after the accused are released on bail by the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court, more than two and a half years have passed and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty and therefore, the bail may not be cancelled is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. Once, it is found that the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled.”
Judgment
The bench impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court were quashed and set aside. The accused are on bail were directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority within a period of one week from the date of order, failing which the nonbailable warrants be issued against them.
Before parting, the Bench observed that in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Case Name: Jayaben vs Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1655 OF 2021
Bench: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice B. V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 10th January 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
