(N.V. Ramana and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
Sunil Kumar Sharma _______________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Rajasthan and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2017 [Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) No. 9775 of 2016], decided on September 6, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2016, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur in S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5858 of 2016, whereby the High Court has granted the bail to the Respondent No. 2 (Accused A-1) and Respondent No. 3 (Accused A-2).
3. According to the prosecution, the accused used to eve-tease the sister of the defacto complainant (appellant herein). Subsequently, brother-in-law of the complainant [deceased] tried to intervene in the matter and warned the accused persons to stay away from his sister-in-law and other family members. It is alleged that because of the aforesaid intervention by the deceased, the accused harbored enmity against him. Further it is alleged that the accused persons called the deceased to an isolated place and killed him. A complaint was registered on 16.09.2014 before the jurisdictional police regarding the disappearance of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint an FIR being Crime No. 273/2014 was registered under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC. After the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, Section 302 was also added. During the investigation, the involvement of the present accused is alleged to have been revealed. After completion of the investigation, I.O. has filed a charge-sheet No. 20140334/2014 dated 30.11.2014 against the respondent accused under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and the trial is pending in Session Case No. 03/2015 (11/2015).
4. The accused-respondents herein had filed a bail application before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur being SBCR Misc. Bail Application No. 5858 of 2016. The High Court by the impugned order has enlarged the accused-respondents on bail. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court granting the regular bail to the accused-respondents, the de-facto complainant (appellant herein) is in appeal before this Court.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegations are serious and the accused-respondents should not be set at liberty as the trial is pending. It is brought to our notice that as many as 16 witnesses have already been examined and 15 more are left. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is threat to the life of the witness and possibility of tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that there is no requirement of cancelling the bail of the accused-respondents herein, rather the trial may be expedited.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the allegations are very serious in nature and the apprehension, expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, that the accused may misuse the freedom and try to subvert the prosecution and threaten the witnesses and the family members of the complainant cannot be lightly brushed aside. The High Court has granted the bail to the accused entirely relying on the fact that the present case is based on the circumstantial evidence. At this stage, we do not wish to express any opinion on the aforesaid aspect lest any remark made in the order might cause prejudice to either the accused or the prosecution in the trial. In facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that grant of bail to the accused at this stage would not be in the interest of justice.
8. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court is set-aside and appeal is allowed.
9. In view of the above, respondent no. 2 and 3 are directed to surrender and be taken into the custody.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9775/2016
Sunil Kumar Sharma ________________________________ Petitioner
v.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors ______________________ Respondent(s)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 20836/2016)
Date: 06-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before N.V. Ramana and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Vibha Dwivedi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar, AAG,
Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Vinoy, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. Leave granted.
11. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
12. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to surrender and be taken into the custody.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
