Relevant circumstances bearing on seriousness & gravity of crime as well as role attributed to applicant, hold importance while deciding bail application: SC

Read Judgment: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 1, 2021:While setting aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) allowing fifth bail application of the second respondent (wife of accused), the Supreme Court has noted that the seriousness and gravity of crime and the role attributed to the applicant has important bearing while deciding an application for bail. 

A Division Bench of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that the High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act has been assigned to the second respondent, when actually there was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. 

The observation came pursuant to an appeal arising from the judgment, whereby the High Court had allowed the fifth bail application of the second respondent. 

The background of the case was that due to an alleged prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, the husband of the second respondent together with certain other members of his family and sharp shooters shot at deceased (Daansingh) who however, survived the incident. 

Later, FIR came to be filed u/s 307 of the IPC and the second respondent was arrested and charge-sheeted. The case took a turn when a fortnight prior to the recording of his evidence, Daansingh was murdered. Accordingly, an FIR was registered by the brother of the appellant (Bhoopendra Singh). 

Later, the second respondent was arrested and named as ‘accused’ in the final report u/s 173 of CrPC after investigation. He was also denied bail, four times,  by the High Court observing that the second respondent was not co-operating in the investigation.

But later on, the High Court allowed the fifth application for bail of the second respondent observing that she is a woman and she has been in custody for three years and ten months, apart from the fact that no overt act was assigned to her. 

After considering the evidence, the Apex Court found that the deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case u/s 307 of the IPC and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose. 

The Top Court also noted that the mobile number with which the cell phone of the second respondent was in contact with was of the co-accused Prahlad, who was alleged to be a hired sharp-shooter, and apart from that, there were two other mobile numbers which were in use by the second respondent, as indicated in the charge-sheet. 

Moreover, final report u/s 173 of CrPC also indicated that the investigation had 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; and that she was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the rental premises where she resided, added the Top Court. 

The Division Bench further found that the High Court had rejected four previous bail applications and there was no change in circumstances. 

In this backdrop, the High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second respondent and, having proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the High Court had been duly established, opined the Apex Court.“Apart from the material drawn from the call data records, it has been found during the course of the investigation that in order to purchase the firearms for the crime, Ratan Singh, the husband of the second respondent, had paid an advance of Rs. 40,000 to Prahlad. Prahlad had brought three katas and ten cartridges. The weapons were kept in a room by Anek Singh at Bharatpur in which the second respondent was residing on a rental basis. Moreover, 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 (Daansingh) to the killers”, observed the Division Bench.