2001 JTR(SC) 482
2001 1 AICLR 689 ; 2001 AIR(SC) 1310 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 1154 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 747 ; 2001 43 AllCriC 547 ; 2001 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1036 ; 2001 5 BomCR(SC) 493 ; 2001 3 BomLR 477 ; 2001 CriLR 329 ; 2001 2 Crimes(SC) 30 ; 2001 CrLJ 1695 ; 2001 2 EastCrC(SC) 35 ; 2001 1 JLJR(SC) 850 ; 2001 3 JT 495 ; 2001 3 PLJR(SC) 70 ; 2001 2 RCR(Cri) 214 ; 2001 2 Scale 470 ; 2001 4 SCC 224 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 671 ; 2001 2 SCR 438 ; 2001 2 UJ 844 ; 2001 2 Supreme 371
2001(2) Supreme 371
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Ritesh S/o Vasudeo Wanjari -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3852 of 2000)
Decided on 15-3-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande, Advocates.
For the Respondent : M.R. Daga, P.S. Sontakke and T.S. Arora, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where final charge sheet has been filed Court cannot grant bail to accused on ground of innocence or non-involvement. For this better course is to apply for discharge under Ch. XVIII of Cr.P.C. instead of granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.438, S.439
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.397, S.364, S.34, S.302, S.201, S.120(b), S.109
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT : S.3(i)(xi)
(A) The accused was charged under Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in connection with a conspiracy to murder linked to a love marriage dispute. The High Court relied on Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail, holding that no material on record established the accuseds involvement in the conspiracy and that it was difficult to infer criminal conspiracy, especially during the period the accused was at Baramati, emphasizing the need for caution in drawing inferences at the precharge stage. The trial courts denial of bail was set aside as premature, given that the final charge-sheet had not yet been evaluated by the trial court under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Bail at the stage of investigation or before charge-sheet filing is to be granted only when there is no material on record to prima facie establish an offence, and the High Court must ordinarily defer to the trial courts assessment once a charge-sheet is filed; circumstantial evidence alone, without direct evidence of conspiracy, does not justify refusal of bail, and the accused cannot be presumed guilty merely on the basis of suspicious conduct or association.
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested in relation to the murder of a woman from the Scheduled Caste, allegedly due to her familys objection to a love marriage on caste grounds. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired with others and hired a contact killer, and that the accused visited Baramati in connection with the plot. Despite allegations of telephonic discussions and attempts to murder the victim on multiple dates, the conspiracy could not be fully executed until 15th December, when the victim was killed and her identity concealed. The accused moved an application for bail before the trial court, which was dismissed on the ground of complicity, but was later allowed by the High Court on the ground of insufficient material to establish conspiracy.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that there was no material on record to establish the accuseds involvement in the criminal conspiracy and that it was difficult to infer conspiracy, particularly during the period the accused was at Baramati. The court observed that the prosecution had not been given an adequate opportunity to lead evidence on the conspiracy charge, and that the reliance on telephonic talks was not sufficient at the precharge stage. The Single Judge was found to have erred in evaluating the merits at an early stage and in not allowing the trial court to assess the evidence after the charge-sheet.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail at a stage before the charge-sheet was filed and before the trial court had evaluated the evidence; whether the material on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy; and whether the trial court should have been afforded the first opportunity to assess the accuseds guilt under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
Bail cannot be denied at the precharge stage solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and suspicion of conspiracy; the High Court must not usurp the trial courts function under the Code of Criminal Procedure and must defer to the trial courts assessment once a charge-sheet is on record, unless exceptional grounds are made out.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the accused is released on bail pending trial, subject to the trial courts further consideration of the plea.
(A) The accused was charged under Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in connection with a conspiracy to murder linked to a love marriage dispute. The High Court relied on Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail, holding that no material on record established the accuseds involvement in the conspiracy and that it was difficult to infer criminal conspiracy, especially during the period the accused was at Baramati, emphasizing the need for caution in drawing inferences at the precharge stage. The trial courts denial of bail was set aside as premature, given that the final charge-sheet had not yet been evaluated by the trial court under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Bail at the stage of investigation or before charge-sheet filing is to be granted only when there is no material on record to prima facie establish an offence, and the High Court must ordinarily defer to the trial courts assessment once a charge-sheet is filed; circumstantial evidence alone, without direct evidence of conspiracy, does not justify refusal of bail, and the accused cannot be presumed guilty merely on the basis of suspicious conduct or association.
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested in relation to the murder of a woman from the Scheduled Caste, allegedly due to her familys objection to a love marriage on caste grounds. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired with others and hired a contact killer, and that the accused visited Baramati in connection with the plot. Despite allegations of telephonic discussions and attempts to murder the victim on multiple dates, the conspiracy could not be fully executed until 15th December, when the victim was killed and her identity concealed. The accused moved an application for bail before the trial court, which was dismissed on the ground of complicity, but was later allowed by the High Court on the ground of insufficient material to establish conspiracy.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that there was no material on record to establish the accuseds involvement in the criminal conspiracy and that it was difficult to infer conspiracy, particularly during the period the accused was at Baramati. The court observed that the prosecution had not been given an adequate opportunity to lead evidence on the conspiracy charge, and that the reliance on telephonic talks was not sufficient at the precharge stage. The Single Judge was found to have erred in evaluating the merits at an early stage and in not allowing the trial court to assess the evidence after the charge-sheet.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail at a stage before the charge-sheet was filed and before the trial court had evaluated the evidence; whether the material on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy; and whether the trial court should have been afforded the first opportunity to assess the accuseds guilt under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi:
Bail cannot be denied at the precharge stage solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and suspicion of conspiracy; the High Court must not usurp the trial courts function under the Code of Criminal Procedure and must defer to the trial courts assessment once a charge-sheet is on record, unless exceptional grounds are made out.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the accused is released on bail pending trial, subject to the trial courts further consideration of the plea.
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.-Leave granted.
2. The respondent was arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/99 registered by the Police Station, Goregaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Arocities) Act. He has been granted bail pending trial vide the order impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was no material on record to establish the involvement of the respondent in the commission of the crime and that the accused was not aware of the criminal conspiracy, in execution of which, the deceased Shubhangi was killed.
3. According to the prosecution, the respondent had a love affair with the deceased Shubhangi. The deceased was insisting for marriage to which the respondent and his mother were not agreeable as the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and the respondent belonged to Teli community which is considered as higher caste. The respondent is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy to get rid of Shubhangi by eliminating her. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to create evidence in his favour, the respondent went to Baramati on 25th November, 1999. On 11.12.1999 one Ms. Vanita contacted the deceased, who was working at Nagpur, and took her to market on the pretext of making preparations for marriage of the deceased with the respondent. In the evening, the other accused, namely, Ashish, Dinesh and Ajay came in a Maruti car and picked up the deceased along with Ms. Vanita and took her to Ramtek. A contact killer is alleged to have been hired by the accused to murder the deceased. As the alleged contract killer did not reach on that day, the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused could not be implemented. Again on 13.11.1999 accused Ms. Vanita took the deceased on the pretext of solemnising her marriage with the respondent. To the misfortune of the accused, the killing was not accomplished even on that day as their car had met with an accident in which Ms. Vanita, accused had sustained some injuries. The task of murdering the deceased was accomplished on 15.12.1999. The deceased was inflicted injuries with knife and stone and was also strangulated. In order to conceal the identity of the victim, the accused persons took away her purse, bag and other articles from the dead body and later on burnt the same.
4. After his arrest the respondent filed an application for bail in the trial Court which was dismissed on 24.4.2000 on finding that his complicity in the criminal conspiracy was established. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the respondent filed a Revision Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court which was allowed vide the impugned order.
5. For releasing the respondent on bail, the High Court has ventured to refer to the merits of the case and pre-maturily held that there was no material on record to show that the respondent was guilty of conspiracy, in execution of which, Shubhangi, once his beloved, was murdered. Despite observing that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court did not afford the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence for establishing the existence of conspiracy and wrongly held that it was difficult to infer the existence of a conspiracy particularly when the respondent had gone to Baramati. The factum of the respondent going to Baramati was relied upon by the prosecution as one of the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the crime particularly when it was alleged that while at Baramati he used to have telephonic talks with the other accused persons about the alleged conspiracy. In the absence of "exact talks", the High Court found that the allegation of conspiracy was not established. The Single Judge of the High Court was not justified, at the initial stage, to observe:
"....it is difficult to say that after the conspiracy was hatched the applicant had been to Baramati and from there he used to have talks with other accused on phone regarding the alleged conspiracy."
6. Once the final charge-sheet has been filed in the trial Court, the High Court, under the normal circumstances, should have permitted the respondent to get a verdict of his innocence or involvement from that Court under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No exceptional ground has been made out, in the instant case, to depart from such a usual established procedure. The order impugned being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.
7. Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The respondent would be at liberty to urge grounds, if there is any, for his discharge before the trial Court and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by us in this order while deciding his plea of bail. We make it clear that no observation made by the High Court in the order impugned shall either be made a ground in favour of the accused for deciding such a plea.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh, 2001(2) Supreme 371 : 2001 (1) All. Cri. LR 689 : 2001 (2) Crimes 301 : AIR 2001 SC 1310 : (2001) 4 SCC 224 : 2001 (3) JT 495 : 2001 Cri. LJ 1695 : 2001 (1) JCC 296 : 2001 Cri. LR (SC) 329 : 2001 (2) UJ (SC) 844 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 671
00032