The likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted : SC
September 27, 2021. Supreme Court
Facts:
The post-mortem examination has revealed that the body of the appellant’s son was found dumped near a railway crossing culvert in Jhalawar on 14 February 2018. The homicidal death of the deceased’s son had occurred as a result of a conspiracy to murder him and an attempt had been made to kill him previously on 5 January 2018. On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-5) and blood sample (6) respectively gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, Barbiturates, tranquillizers, and insecticides. The application for bail filed by the first respondent (Anita Meena) was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 26 February 2019. The High Court noted that she had a child of eleven months and due to her incarceration, her child was also confined with her in the jail. Eventually, by an order dated 12 February 2021, the impugned order was allowed.
Observations:
Bail order has been challenged in Supreme Court. The judge must consider the severity of the punishment if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon judges to exercise their discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly. The factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity of the accusation; and the likelihood of the offence being repeated. The High Court ought to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime. The likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted. High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail.
Held:
Allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 12 February 2021 enlarging the first respondent on bail. Consequently, the first respondent shall surrender forthwith and be taken into custody.
Shri Mahadev Meena
Versus
Raveen Rathore And Another
