Seriousness & Gravity Of Crime Relevant Considerations For Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court by which it granted bail to an accused for murder of the village sarpanch, after noting that the High Court did not consider the relevant considerations of seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused.

While directing the accused to surrender on or before 7 November 2021, a Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna has clarified that observations made in its judgment are only for the purpose of considering the application for bail and will have no bearing on the merits of the case or the pending trial.

Calling the High Court's order unsustainable, the Bench opined that the High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the accused.

The direction has been passed in an appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 August 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the High Court allowed the fifth bail application of the accused (second respondent in present case).

Challenging the High Court order, Advocate Namit Saxena, who appeared on behalf of the son of the deceased, submitted that the High Court is in error in proceeding on the basis that no overt act is attributed to the woman since the charge-sheet, which has been filed after investigation, indicates that she was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime

The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court on the following grounds:

• The High Court has failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role which is attributed to the second respondent.
  
• 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 and there was no change in circumstances.
  
• The High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second respondent proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis.
  

According to the Bench the High Court's observation that "no overt act is assigned to her (the second respondent) in the present case" are erroneous, as the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC indicates that the investigation has revealed that :

• The second respondent 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
• She was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the rental premises where she resided.
  
• The mobile number with which the cell phone of the second respondent was in contact with is of the co-accused Prahlad, who is alleged to be a hired sharp- shooter.

The Bench also took note of the following observations made during the investigation:

• In order to purchase the fire arms for the crime, the husband of the second respondent, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to the alleged sharp shooter.
• The weapons were kept in a room in which the second respondent was residing on a rental basis.
• 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 to the killers.
  

The second respondent and one of the accused whose bail had been challenged in the present case, was denied bail by the High Court on 6 April 2018, 5 September 2019 and 8 September 2020.

In its order dated 5 September 2019, the High Court had refused to grant her bail noting that two mobiles were recovered from her and it was revealed that different sims were used to be in contact with other co accused and had also informed the shooter about movement of the deceased.

While dismissing the fourth bail application, the High Court had observed that the second respondent was not co- operating in the investigation.

The High Court had allowed the fifth application for bail of the second respondent observing that:

• The second respondent is a woman and has been in custody for three years and ten months.
  
• No overt act was assigned to her in the present case and Co-accused Vijaypal has been granted bail
  

There is a variance in the story of the prosecution in respect of the location of the second respondent and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, the Court noted.

 Case Title: Bhoopendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation : LL 2021 SC 615

Click here to read/download the judgment