In a recent case, the High Court’s legal analysis regarding bail denial came under scrutiny. Despite multiple rejected bail applications, the court granted bail to a key accused. However, the decision was overturned due to critical oversights in assessing the severity of the crime and the accused’s role. Learn more about the nuances of granting bail in complex cases by reading our blog post.
Facts
- The second respondent was arrested on 3 October 2017 and named as an accused in the final report submitted on 28 December 2017.
- FIR No 732 of 2017 was registered at Police Station Mathuraghat for various serious offenses under the IPC.
- The appellant, who is the son of the deceased Sarpanch, was seeking bail.
- The High Court denied bail to the second respondent on multiple occasions.
- Daansingh, the deceased, was supposed to give evidence in the criminal trial but was murdered a fortnight prior to that.
- A prior enmity between the accused and the deceased led to a previous shooting incident in September 2015.
- The High Court allowed the fifth bail application of the second respondent
- The High Court observed that the second respondent is a woman
- She has been in custody for three years and ten months
- No overt act was assigned to her in the present case
- Co-accused Vijaypal has been granted bail
- There is a variance in the story of the prosecution regarding the location of the second respondent
- The conclusion of the trial is likely to take time
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Mr. Namit Saxena, counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court made a mistake in assuming that no overt act was attributed to the second respondent.
- He pointed out that the charge-sheet, prepared after investigation, clearly indicates the involvement of the second respondent in the matter.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The High Court made an error in not considering the specific role attributed to the second respondent in a pre-meditated murder case.
- Evidence shows that the second respondent was in contact with a hired sharp-shooter and was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime.
- Multiple bail applications of the second respondent had been rejected, indicating no change in circumstances warranting bail.
- The deceased was murdered before testifying in a prior case, further highlighting the seriousness of the crime.
- The High Court’s assertion that no overt act was attributed to the second respondent was erroneous, as the charge-sheet detailed her involvement in aiding the crime.
- The High Court’s oversight of key details in the case justifies setting aside their bail order for the second respondent.
- Justice DY Chandrachud in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar outlined considerations for granting bail.
- The considerations for granting bail are different from considerations for cancellation of bail.
- Appellate courts must carefully evaluate reasons for granting bail.
- The High Court failed to consider relevant circumstances that bear on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent.
- The High Court’s decision to grant bail was deemed unsustainable in light of previous decisions.
- The High Court mistakenly believed that no overt act was assigned to the second respondent in the case.
- There were no significant changes in circumstances that would justify the grant of bail.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The second respondent must surrender on or before 7 November 2021.
- The observations made in the judgment are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and do not impact the merits of the case or the pending trial.
- Any pending applications are disposed of as a result of this judgment.
- The application for bail filed by the second respondent is rejected.
- The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated 11 August 2021 in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Fifth Bail Application No 11627 of 2021 are set aside.
Case Title: BHOOPENDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2021 INSC 691)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001279-001279 / 2021
