KAMLA DEVI vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2022 KAMLA DEVI …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR        ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2022 KAMLA DEVI …...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR       ….RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T NAGARATHNA J.  These appeals have been preferred by the appellant who is the wife of the deceased, Sohan Singh, challenging orders dated

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.03.11 16:39:38 IST Reason: Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail   Application   Nos.   10473   of   2019   and   11546   of   2019 1 respectively, whereby bail has been granted to the two accused, namely,   Kishor   Singh   @   Kishan   Singh,   who   is   the   second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 and Kalu Singh who is the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2022, in connection with FIR No.229 of 2019, registered at Police Station Bhim, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.  2. The facts in a nutshell are that appellant is the wife of the deceased. She is stated to be the person who lodged a missing th person   report   on   14  May,   2019   stating   therein   that   the th deceased, Sohan Singh, aged 48 years, had on 13  May 2019 left their residence to attend the marriage ceremony of one Sawai Singh   and   was   expected   to   return   by   2.00   a.m.   the   next morning. When the deceased did not return home, the appellant assumed that he may have continued to stay at Sawai Singh’s house. However, when she inquired the next morning, Sawai Singh   informed   her   that   the   deceased   had   left   the   marriage ceremony the previous night itself.  The appellant further stated in the missing person report that she had a suspicion that the respondents­accused herein in connivance with their mother, Teji Devi, had in some manner caused harm to her husband.  2 3. That a First Information Report, being FIR No. 229 of 2019 th dated 15  May, 2019 came to be lodged, at the instance of the son of the deceased, stating that the deceased was returning to his house after attending the marriage function of Sawai Singh, the nephew of the deceased. The deceased was last seen outside the   house   of   the   three   accused,   namely   Kishore   Singh   alias Kishan Singh, Kalu Singh, who are the two respondents­accused herein   and   Teji   Devi   who   is   the   mother   of   the   respondents­ accused. That three passersby had disclosed to the informant­ son   of   the   deceased   that   they   saw   the   accused   persons quarrelling with the deceased on the night of his death. One Nath Singh had informed the complainant that he had seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased outside their house and subsequently dragging the deceased into their house, wherein he was assaulted and murdered. The dead body of the deceased was dragged by the accused and thrown into a well nearby.  th 4. Report of the post­mortem examination conducted on 15 May, 2019 recorded that the deceased had died as a result of “cardiopulmonary arrest due asphyxia and venous congestion.” The   report   further   stated   that   the   deceased   was   drowned following his death and that the hyoid bone of the deceased appeared to be fractured. Final report as to cause of death was 3 reserved,   to   be   finalised   based   on   the   report   of   the   forensic science laboratory.  th 5. A charge sheet was submitted by the police on 9   July, 2019, against the three accused persons, before the Court of the District   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan,   for   charges   under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,  the “IPC”). The  charge­sheet  has  recorded that  on the night   of   the   incident,   the   deceased   had   at   about   2.00   a.m. knocked on the door of Teji Devi. She informed her sons, Kalu Singh and Kishan Singh, the respondents­accused, of the same. The respondents­accused who were on the roof of their house, jumped down and attacked the deceased with   lathis , with an intention to murder him. After the deceased was killed, all three accused dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw it in a well nearby, together with the lathi used to cause his death.  The matter was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, Rajasthan for trial.  rd 6. The respondents­accused were arrested on 23  May, 2019, in connection with FIR No. 229 of 2019 and were sent to judicial custody. They remained  in judicial custody for a period of nearly four months before they were granted bail by the High Court vide  the impugned judgments.  4 7. The respondents­accused preferred separate applications seeking   bail,   under   Section  439   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “CrPC”) before the Court of the Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan.   Bail application preferred by Kishan Singh, respondent­accused in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 came to be rejected by an order th dated 09  July, 2019, having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged and the   prima­facie   evidence on record as regards the guilt of the accused. Subsequently, the bail application preferred by Kalu Singh, respondent­accused in Criminal Appeal No. 343 th   of 2022 was also   rejected by an order dated 05 September, 2019.  8. The   respondents­accused   preferred   separate   bail applications before the High Court and by the impugned orders

Court has enlarged them on bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2019.  Being aggrieved by the grant of bail to the respondents­ accused, the appellant­wife of the deceased has preferred the instant appeals   before this Court.  9. We have heard Sri. H.D. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri. Mehul M. Gupta, learned 5 counsel for the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 and perused the material on record.  10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not properly exercised its discretionary power to grant bail to the respondents­accused in a judicious manner. That the High Court, in the impugned orders, had failed to consider the severity of the offences alleged against the respondents­accused and the brutal manner in which the offences were committed and   attempted   to   be   concealed   by   throwing   the   body   of   the deceased, together with the murder weapon, into a well.  11. It   was   urged   that   the   trial   has   just   commenced   and thirteen   witnesses   are   yet   to   be   examined;   therefore,   it   is imperative that the accused remain under custody, in order to ensure that they do not abscond or tamper with evidences or threaten the family of the deceased and/or witnesses, more so because,   the   accused   had   previously   attempted   to   cause disappearance   of   evidence   by   disposing   off   the   body   of   the deceased, together with the   lathis   used to commit murder, by throwing the same into a well. 12. That following the grant of bail by the High Court, the accused, Kishan Singh had threatened the appellant herein of dire consequences of her pursuing the criminal trial in connection 6 with case No. 299 of 2019. That a complaint under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. has also been filed in this regard.  13. According   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant,   the High Court has not assigned reasons for the grant of bail to the respondents­accused and has granted bail by a cryptic order  de hors  any reasoning, notwithstanding the fact that the accused, if convicted   for   the   offences   alleged,   could   be   sentenced   to   life imprisonment.  14. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court: i) In   Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.  – [(2004) 7 SCC 528],  this Court held   that   although   it   is   established   that   a   Court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination   of   the   evidence   and   make   an   elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the Court is required to indicate the  prima facie  reasons justifying the grant of bail.  ii) Reference was made to   Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu & Anr.   – [(2012) 9 SCC 446]   to contend   that   the   period   of   custody   undergone   by   the 7 accused   seeking   bail,   was   a   relevant   factor   to   be considered while deciding an application for bail. That in the   instant   case,   the   accused   had   been   committed   to custody barely four months before they were released on bail and therefore, the impugned orders granting bail to the accused are not tenable in the eyes of law.  15. In the aforesaid case, this Court held that a Court, before granting bail ought to consider the factors which would justify the   grant   of   bail,   in   juxtaposition   with   the   societal   concern involved in releasing an accused on bail.  (i) In   State   through   C.B.I   vs.   Amaramani   Tripathi   – [(2005) 8 SCC 21] , this Court held that a Court granting bail to an accused,  must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a

was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was

observations, this Court set aside an order of the High Court   whereby   bail   had   been   granted   to   the   accused therein, having no regard to the material placed by the prosecution   therein,   which   indicated   that   the   accused had, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course 8 of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case.

learned counsel for the appellant that it was highly probable that the accused herein, if not remanded to custody on cancellation of their bail bonds, are likely to interfere with the investigation, abscond or even cause harm to the appellant herein and the informant. It was urged that the grant of bail to the respondents­ accused   was   contrary   to   the   settled   principles   of   law   and judgments   of   this   Court.   It   was   submitted   on   behalf   of   the appellant­wife of the deceased that these appeals may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.  17. Per contra, Sri. Mehul M. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent   accused   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.342   of   2022 submitted   that   the   impugned   orders   do   not   suffer   from   any infirmity   warranting   interference   by   this   Court.   That   the appellant and her son, the informant ,  have narrated an untrue version of events in order to falsely implicate the accused.  18. Referring to the contents of the post­mortem report of the th deceased   dated   15   May,   2019,   it   was   contended   that   the deceased   had   died   as   a   result   of   suffering   a   sudden   cardio 9 pulmonary arrest and therefore, the death of the deceased could not be attributed to an assault by the accused. It was further submitted that, since the final report as to the cause of death was   reserved   and   was   to   be   finalised   based   on   the   forensic laboratory reports, it was rather premature to conclude that the accused had any role to play in the death of the deceased.  19. The   allegation   that   accused­Kishan   Singh,   after   he   was enlarged   on   bail   threatened   the   appellant   herein,   has   been denied. It has been submitted in this regard that such allegation and the complaint registered by the appellant in connection with such allegation were merely attempts to further implicate the accused, falsely.  20. It was next urged that the High Court was not required to conduct an elaborate discussion as to the merits of the case and the evidence on record, at a pre­trial stage. That such exercise, if undertaken by the High Court while deciding a bail application, would prejudice fair trial. That the accused have no criminal antecedents and have been cooperating with the investigation of the case. Therefore, the impugned orders granting bail to the accused do not call for interference by this Court.  21. Having   regard   to   the   contention   of   Sri.   H.D.   Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned orders of 10 the High Court whereby bail was granted to the respondents­ accused, are bereft of any reasoning and that such orders are casual and cryptic, we extract, hereinunder, those portions of

October,   2019  passed   by   the   High   Court,   which   records   the “reasoning” of the High Court for granting bail:  th   Impugned order dated 09      September, 2019 “Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Kishore Singh @ Kishan Singh S/o Sh. Dungar Singh Rawat shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.229/2019 of Police   Station   Bhim,   District   Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of   Rs.50,000/­   with   two   sound   and   solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/­ each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and   whenever   called   upon   to   do   so   till   the completion of the trial.”  th   Impugned order dated 17      October, 2019 “Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that   petitioner   Kalu   Singh   S/o   Sh.   Dungar 11 Singh   Rawat   shall   be   released   on   bail   in connection   with   FIR   No.229/2019   of   Police Station Bheem, District Rajsamand provided he executes   a   personal   bond   in   a   sum   of Rs.50,000/­   with   two   sound   and   solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/­ each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and   whenever   called   upon   to   do   so   till   the completion of the trial.” 

factors   to   be   considered   by   a   Court   while   deciding   a   bail application. The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) the seriousness of the offence; (ii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii)   the   impact  of   release   of  the   accused   on   the   prosecution witnesses;     (iv)   likelihood   of   the   accused   tampering   with evidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted

Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of

12

mechanical   manner,   without   recording   reasons,   would   suffer from the vice of non­application of mind, rendering it illegal,

duly acknowledging that liberty of individual is an invaluable right, we have held that an order granting bail to an accused, if

would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this 13 Court   while   exercising   jurisdiction   under   Article   136   of   the Constitution of India. 

meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any   particular   law   ceases,   so   does   the   law   itself,”   is   also apposite. 26. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order   above.   At   the   outset,   we   observe   that   the   extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments,   it   is   not   necessary   for   a   Court   to   give   elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would   not   have   been   crystalised   as   such.   There   cannot   be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one  that  would  result  in  a   conviction  or,  by  contrast,  in  an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail.   However,   the   Court   deciding   a   bail   application   cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment   if   the   allegations   are   proved   beyond   reasonable doubt   which   would   result   in   a   conviction;   reasonable 14 apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering   of   the   evidence;   the   frivolity   in   the   case   of   the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a  prima­ facie   satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.  27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we shall now consider the   facts   of   the   present   case.   The   allegations   against respondents­ accused as well as the contentions raised at the Bar have been narrated  . On a consideration of the same, supra the following aspects of the case would emerge:  a) The allegations against the respondents­accused are under Section 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC, with regard to the murder of Sohan Singh, husband of the appellant herein. The offences alleged against the respondents­accused are of grave nature.  b) The accusation against the accused is that they committed the offence of murder on the deceased and attempted to clandestinely dispose off the dead body of the deceased and the lathis used to attack him, by throwing the same in a well nearby so as to conceal the offence.   c) It is also the case of the appellant that following the release of accused­Kishan Singh on bail, he  had threatened the 15 appellant herein with dire consequences for pursuing the criminal trial in connection with FIR No. 299 of 2019. A complaint   in   this   regard   also   came   to   be   filed   against Kishan   Singh.  Thus,   the   possibility   of   the   accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out.  d) As   regards   the   contention   advanced   on   behalf   of   the respondents­accused to the effect that the  deceased had died as a result of suffering a sudden cardio pulmonary arrest and therefore, the death of the deceased could not be attributed to an assault by the accused, we observe, while not expressing any opinion on merits of the case, that,   the   post­mortem   report   when   considered   in   its entirety is suggestive of the fact that the deceased was murdered.   Although   the   cause   of   death   is   recorded   as “cardio   pulmonary   arrest   due   asphyxia   and   venous congestion,” the hyoid bone of the deceased appeared to be fractured. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that the prosecution has not established a   prima facie   case as to the guilt of the accused. We are therefore, not of the  prima facie  opinion that the subject FIR was filed with a view to implicate the accused.   16 e) The bail applications preferred by the respondents­accused under   Section   439   of   the   CrPC   before   the  Additional Sessions   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan   were   rejected, having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged.  f) The   High   Court   of   Rajasthan,   in   the   impugned   orders

considered   the   aforestated   aspects   of   the   case   in   the context of the grant of bail.  28. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in light of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is a fit case for the grant of bail to the respondents­accused, given the seriousness of the allegations against them.  29. As noted in   Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.)   [1978 CriLJ 129],   when bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring   material   aspects   which   establish   a   prima­facie   case 17 against the accused. Strangely, the State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the impugned orders herein. While we are conscious of the fact that a Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. The High Court has granted   bail   to   the   respondents­accused   by   passing   a   very cryptic and casual order,   cogent reasoning. We find that de hors the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents  accused. Hence the impugned orders

The appeals are allowed.  30. The   respondents­accused   are   on   bail.   Their   bail   bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail  authorities  within  a  period of two  weeks  from today.  .................................J.  (M.R. SHAH)   .................................J.  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)  NEW DELHI;  th 11  MARCH, 2022.  18