Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal by the deceased’s widow against the grant of bail to accused persons 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections , , , and of the (‘IPC’), Section / of the ; Section read with Section of the and Sections , and of the (‘MCOCA’), the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar* and Sanjay Karol, JJ. allowing the appeal, remanded the bail application for offence under for fresh consideration by the Bombay High Court.
Factual Matrix
The families had a long-drawn land dispute. The accused 2 was appointed as an agent to take care of the legal matters and other issues relating to the disputed property. Though a settlement was seemingly arrived at, the accused persons were under the impression that the deceased was not favourably responding to the settlement. The revenue proceeding, which is an off-shoot of the civil dispute, was listed before the Collector. On coming out of the office of the Collector, when the deceased was purchasing fruits at about 2:45 pm, accused 4 shot him with a country-made pistol. Initially, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons sans accusation of commission of offences under . However, a supplementary charge sheet was filed whereunder offences under were also inserted against them alleging that accused 1 to 4 were members of the organised crime syndicate of which accused 4 was the gang leader and based on the conspiracy hatched between them, they murdered the deceased.
The appellant-widow content that the order granting bail to accused and in the case was an outcome of consideration akin to a mini-trial.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that since was involved, the accused 2 and 3 could not have sought bail in the exercise of the discretion available under Section 439 of the CrPC, in view of the rigours under Section of the . The Court said that the impugned order did not reflect the consideration of the same, as required in respect of matters involving offences under in terms of the provisions thereunder as also the decisions rendered by this Court in respect of grant of bail. The Court explained that in case of an embargo put in by a specific provision under a special statute in the matter of grant of bail in respect of offences allegedly committed thereunder, the power to grant bail should necessarily be subject to satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in such specific provision. In the matter at hand, such a specific provision is contained under Section of the .
Regarding the contention that the High Court had transgressed into impermissible area since the question of sufficiency or otherwise and correctness of the prosecution case were considered while passing the impugned order instead of confining the consideration to the question of satisfaction or otherwise of the stringent conditions in the matter of grant of bail where offences under MCOCA are involved, the Court said that grant of bail to respondent 2 and 3 by the High Court was not on the ground of violation of Part-III of the . The Court stated that materials collected during the investigation would not mature into evidence at the stage of consideration of an appeal and as such, the admissibility and evidentiary value are matters to be decided during the trial and are not matters for consideration at the present stage of the proceedings.
Perusing the impugned decision, the Court noted that observations were made in the impugned decision in the form of findings with regard to the role of the accused persons involved in the crime in question, including that of accused 2 and 3. Hence, the Court agreed with the appellant-widow’s contention that the manner of consideration and the conclusions arrived at caused prejudice to the prosecution during the trial and if they are allowed to remain, it would deprive them of a fair trial. The Court also said that there was no consideration of the fact that the case on hand carried allegations of commission of offences under MCOCA against accused 2 and 3.
The Court added that questions pertaining to whether the death was homicide and if so, who is or are the culprit(s) were matters to be decided by the Trial Court on the conclusion of the trial. The Court stated that “appreciation of materials on record for the purpose of forming a definite opinion with respect to the question as to whether an accused person(s) had played roles or not, in the crime concerned is not permissible while considering an application for grant of bail.” Hence, the Court held that the High Court ought not to have made the observations regarding the roles played or not played by the accused 1, 2 and 3.
The Bench said that the application for bail moved by the accused 2 and 3 ought to have been considered in light of the involvement of the allegation of commission of offences under MCOCA in view of Section of .
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned decision and restored the criminal bail application. However, noting that accused 2 and 3 were on bail from 06-11-2023, the Court permitted to remain them on bail, despite the setting aside of the order, with the same conditions as imposed under the impugned order till the disposal of the bail application. Considering that the offence was from 2020, the Court requested the High Court to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: SLP (Crl.) No. 15341 of 2023 Appellants : Jayshree Kanabar Respondents : State of Maharashtra | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.; Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv; Vinayak Aren, Adv.; Amlaan Kumar, Adv.; Jatin Dhamija, Adv.; Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.; Nitin Saluja, AOR; For Respondent(s): Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; A. Selvin Raja, AOR. |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .