Explore the nuanced legal analysis by the court in a recent case involving a bail decision. The court’s thorough review of prima facie material and consideration of pending trial details are crucial aspects under scrutiny. Stay tuned to unravel the legal complexities surrounding this intriguing case!
Facts
- The appellant is the sister of respondent No 2 and the wife of the deceased.
- The incident details are not mentioned as the trial is pending.
- The appellant’s mother-in-law lodged the complaint alleging honor killing of her son.
- The appellant alleges that her husband was killed by her family members.
- The appeal challenges the bail order of respondent No 2, who is alleged to be the main conspirator.
- The issue pertains to FIR No 235 of 2017 for offences under Sections 302, 452, and 120B of the IPC.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- The appellant, represented by senior counsel Ms. Indira Jaising, raised a grievance against the respondent No 2 being granted bail by the High Court.
- The appellant argued that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was done without considering all aspects of the case and the reasons for the decision were not provided.
- The counsels for the appellant, the State of Rajasthan, and respondent No 2 presented their arguments before the court.
- The court reviewed the impugned order and other relevant material in relation to the case.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The High Court did not provide any reason for referring to the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2.
- The court has already considered the limited aspect required in a bail matter in a previous Criminal Appeal related to the same incident.
- The impugned order of 01.12.2020 mentions the argument about the cancellation of bail and subsequent recording of witnesses’ statements.
- After reviewing the FIR and charge sheet, the court found prima facie material against respondent No. 2, leading to the decision not to extend bail at that time.
- The documents reviewed by the court indicated prima facie material against respondent No. 2.
- The examination of the appellant, the wife of the deceased, and her statement were considered, but it was not the complete evidence.
- A previous order dated 03.11.2017 by the High Court had granted bail to respondent No. 2, Mukesh Chaudhary, which was challenged by the mother-in-law of the appellant.
- The High Court noted that only 17 out of 47 witnesses have been examined, making it premature to draw conclusions based on limited information.
- Referring to the appellant as the principal star witness holds no significance as the entire evidence needs to be evaluated by the Sessions Court.
- The examination of the appellant alone cannot be deemed as a change in circumstances warranting the consideration of a fourth bail application.
- The order dated 01.12.2020 by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, is deemed unsustainable given the ongoing trial where 21 witnesses have been examined.
- The trial court should consider the case unbiased by any previous observations, and the evidence presented needs to be thoroughly assessed before reaching a conclusion.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Respondent No. 2, Mukesh Chaudhary, is directed to surrender before the Court of Upper District and Sessions Judge, Sr. No 7, Jaipur City.
- All pending applications are disposed of.
- Bail granted to respondent No. 2 is cancelled.
- The appeal is allowed, and the trial is directed to be concluded at the earliest.
- The trial court is instructed to 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 this order.
Case Title: MAMTA NAIR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2021 INSC 329)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000586-000586 / 2021
