when the court found the prima faice case in the earlier bail applications - a stray sentence in the examination of material wintess deceased wife- can not change the circumstances and as such no bail be grated on that account alone.
Bail Application = The appellant herein is the sister of respondent No. 2 and the wife of the deceased. Since it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 is the main conspirator in the crime leading to the killing of the husband of the appellant, the appellant is aggrieved by the order impugned whereunder the respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.- the husband of the appellant has been killed by the family members of the appellant as an honor killing since they had not agreed to the marriage between the deceased and the appellant. - held thatThough the appellant herein, i.e., the wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to conclude on the basis of a stray sentence. Further, merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her statement is of no consequence since the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a Page 4 of 6 conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the respondent No. 2, the mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No. 2 and enlarge him on bail. 8. In the above background, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, impugned herein is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside and the bail granted to respondent No. 2 is cancelled.
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3679 of 2021)
Mamta Nair .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is assailing the order dated
01.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Criminal Miscellaneous
Fourth Bail Application No.13680/2020. The appellant
herein is the sister of respondent No. 2 and the wife of
the deceased. Since it is alleged that the respondent No. 2
is the main conspirator in the crime leading to the killing
of the husband of the appellant, the appellant is
aggrieved by the order impugned whereunder the
respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.
3. The issue relates to the complaint in FIR No. 235 of
2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered in the Police Station
Page 1 of 6
Karni Vihar for the offence under Sections 302, 452 and
120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The mother inlaw of the
appellant Smt. Rama Devi Nair, who is also the mother of
the deceased had lodged the said complaint. According to
the complainant and the appellant herein, the husband
of the appellant has been killed by the family members of
the appellant as an honor killing since they had not
agreed to the marriage between the deceased and the
appellant. The further details relating to the incident
need not be referred to herein since the allegations and
the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties
in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court.
Further, the limited aspect required in a matter relating
to bail has already been taken note by this Court while
disposing of an earlier Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2018
relating to the same incident.
4. The grievance in the instant appeal is that the High
Court without taking into consideration all these aspects
of the matter has enlarged the respondent No. 2 on bail
Page 2 of 6
in a mechanical manner through an order bereft of
reasons.
5. In that background we have heard Ms. Indira Jaising,
learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri H.D.
Thanvi, learned Government Advocate for the State of
Rajasthan, Shri V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for
respondent No. 2 and perused the impugned order as
also the other material on record.
6. The impugned order dated 01.12.2020 in fact refers to
the contention of the counsel for the respondent No. 2
herein that on an earlier instance this Court had
cancelled the bail and thereafter the statement of
witnesses has been recorded. The counsel for the
respondent No. 2 referred to the evidence of the appellant
herein and in that context sought for bail to release
respondent No. 2. However, the High Court has not
assigned any reason whatsoever except referring to the
said contention. Be that as it may, as noted, an earlier
order dated 03.11.2017 had been passed by the High
Court enlarging the respondent No. 2, Mukesh
Page 3 of 6
Chaudhary on bail. The motherinlaw of the appellant
herein Smt. Rama Devi Nair had assailed the said order.
This Court while taking note of the fact situation and
before concluding that the bail is to be cancelled has
recorded as hereunder:
“ The reading of the FIR and the charge
sheet shows that prima facie there is
material against the respondent No. 2 and
in view of that, we are of the opinion that for
the time being, it is not proper to extend the
liberty of bail to the respondent No. 2. In
view of the pendency of the trial, we are not
inclined to go into the details of the case.”
7. The documents already taken note by this Court
indicates that there is prima facie material against the
respondent No. 2. Though the appellant herein, i.e., the
wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention
has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not
the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to
conclude on the basis of a stray sentence. Further,
merely classifying the appellant as the principal star
witness and referring to her statement is of no
consequence since the entire evidence will have to be
assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a
Page 4 of 6
conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an
earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had
arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie
material against the respondent No. 2, the mere
examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered
as a change in circumstance for the High Court to
consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No.
2 and enlarge him on bail.
8. In the above background, we are of the considered
opinion that the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur,
impugned herein is not sustainable. The same is
accordingly set aside and the bail granted to respondent
No. 2 is cancelled. We, therefore, direct the respondent
No. 2Mukesh Chaudhary to surrender before the Court
of Upper District and Sessions Judge, Sr. No. 7, Jaipur
City. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall
consider the case being uninfluenced by any of the
observations herein.
Page 5 of 6
9. The High Court at the time of passing the impugned
order has taken note that 17 witnesses out of 47
witnesses have been examined so far. It is not in dispute
that at this point in time 21 witnesses have been
examined and the trial is proceeding. Taking into
consideration the nature of the offence, it is appropriate
that the trial be concluded at the earliest. The trial court
shall therefore make all efforts to conclude the trial and
dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible but in
any event not later than one year from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
11. Pending applications if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………….…………CJI
(N.V. RAMANA)
………….…………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
………….…………….J.
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
New Delhi,
July 12, 2021
Page 6 of 6
