The Supreme Court has cancelled bail of an accused observing that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined and release of accused would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial
The observations were made by single-judge bench of Justice DY Chandrachud.
Facts:
In case of Mamta & Anr vs. The state of (NCT of Delhi) &Anr. , the appelants are the parents of the deceased child who is a 13 year old class XIII student . The prosecution presented that he was kidnapped for a ransom of rupees one crore and his dead body was recovered from a nallah, day after kidnapping of the child. The second respondent was arrested on 25 November 2014 and was in custody, except for the period when he was released on interim bail, until 2 March 2022. The second respondent is facing for alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Following which bail was granted to the second respondent by the high court against which an appeal was filed by the appelants in supreme court questioning the justifiability of granting bail to second respondent. The offence in the present case involves the alleged murder of a young child for ransom. The trial of the case is underway.
Issue:
Whether high court is justified in granting bail to second respondent when trial is underway.
Counsel for Appelant
Senior Counsel for the appelants submitted:
• The High Court has proceeded inaccurately with a witness who deposed during the course of the trial, is an approver;
• Crucial witnesses, relevant to the case remain to be examined;
• The High Court has proceeded incorrectly on the part that no other witness has been cited as against the second respondent.
Counsel for Respondent
• The second respondent was in custody for over a period of six years and importantly had furnished his voice sample unlike the co- accused who had refused to do the same.
• A witness, who has turned hostile, and not supported the case of prosecution.
• The call data records do not specifically pinpoint the location of the second respondent; which is an important factor.
High court’s ground to grant bail:
• The custody of the second respondent was not required for the purpose of investigation ;as per the charge sheet filed.
• A witness who is an approver ,who has not supported the case of the prosecution; and
• The case totally rests on circumstantial evidence which does not provide sufficient evidence to indicate the involvement of the second respondent.
Supreme Court's Analysis
Supreme Court observed that the high court has, while granting bail, failed to notice crucial aspects that whether or not a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section
439 of CrPC was established. An important circumstance which was overlooked by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. SC held that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role which has been attributed to the second respondent and the crucial witnesses which remain to be examined, The exercise of the discretion by the High Court in the present case is improper, and ordered that the second respondent shall surrender forthwith, and that a trial Judge to conduct the trial expeditiously on a day to day basis within a period of one year.
Order of the high court was set aside and appeal was allowed.
CASE TITLE: Mamta & Anr. VS. The State (NCT OF DELHI) & Anr
CASE DETAILS: Criminal Appeal No 878 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 2971 of 2022)
CORUM: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
