Read Time: 09 minutes
The Supreme Court recently observed that seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role which is attributed to the accused has to be considered by a court before granting bail.
While noting that four previous bail applications had been rejected, the top court said that since there was no change in circumstances, the High Court failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail.
A bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna thus allowed an appeal filed against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court wherein it had allowed the fifth bail application of the accused.
Background:
The instant appeal was filed by the son of the deceased-Daansingh- who was the Sarpanch of the village.
On account of a prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, the husband of the accused together with certain other members of his family and sharp shooters shot at Daansingh in September 2015 but Daansingh survived the incident.
An FIR was then registered under Section 307 of the IPC and the accused-respondent was arrested and charge-sheeted.
The evidence of Daansingh was to be recorded at the criminal trial but a fortnight prior to the recording of his evidence, he was murdered on September 11, 2017.
On September 12, 2017, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 and 336 of the IPC and Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959 after which the accused was arrested on October 3, 2017.
The High Court while allowing the fifth application for bail observed that
Court’s analysis of facts:
The Court noted that the accused was denied bail by the High Court on April 6, 2018; September 5, 2019 and September 8, 2020 when while dismissing the fourth bail application, the Court had observed that the accused was not co-operating in the investigation.
The final report under Section 173 of the CrPC indicated that the investigation has revealed that the accused was using as many as four sim cards and was in touch with one of the sharp-shooters who was hired to commit the crime; and she was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the rental premises where she resided.
Thus, the High Court’s observation that “no overt act is assigned to her (the second respondent) in the present case” were held to be erroneous.
It was further found that during the course of the investigation, in order to purchase the fire arms for the crime, Ratan Singh, the husband of the accused, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to Prahlad, the sharp shooter.
The said weapons were kept in a room by Anek Singh, the accused’s son, at Bharatpur in which the the accused was residing on a rental basis, noted the bench.
“Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased (Daansingh) to the killers. There has been an evident error on the part of the High Court in surmising that no specific or overt act is attributed to the second respondent”, said the Bench.
With this view, the Court went on to add,
“The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case under Section 307 of the IPC and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose. The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications. There was no change in circumstances. In this backdrop, the High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second respondent and, as noted above, having proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the High Court has been duly established.”
Accordingly, the court went on to allow the appeal and directed the accused to surrender on or before November 7, 2021.
Cause Title: Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr
Please Login or Register
