While cancelling the bail of an accused of Section 302 IPC, the Supreme Court held that, “The Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution on one hand and the right of the orderly society, which is committed to the rule of law, on the other. The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration is drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that will ensure that a fair and free trial is not hampered. However, if it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.”
The bench of Justices Surya kant and Dipankar Datta also observed that, “The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings.”
Approving the case of Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Court noted the cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail as under:-
(i) Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted;
(ii) Possibility of the accused to abscond;
(iii) Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the principles of fair trial;
(iv) The link between the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the societal impact on the Court’s interference.
The Supreme Court while cancelling the bail of the caused noted that on his release, the vital witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 CRPC, the Court directed the trial court to conduct the testimony of those witnesses again.
The Court noted, “This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only under Article 142 of the Constitution but also under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereafter ‘CrPC’), be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto. Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. A person can be called and examined though not summoned as a witness, or can be recalled, or re¬examined so as to throw light upon the imputations. Section 311 CrPC, of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused. The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth.
The following directions were issues by the Supreme Court:
(i) the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 is set aside and the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 is hereby cancelled;
(ii) Respondent No. 1 is directed to surrender not later than one week. He shall remain in custody till the conclusion of trial or till this Court releases him on bail in changed circumstances;
(iii) the Trial Court is directed to recall PW¬1, PW¬4, and PW5 for their further cross¬examination;
(iv) the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru is directed to provide security to the Appellant and her family, including her daughter (PW-4), round the clock at least till their fresh depositions;
(v) the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru is further directed to investigate as to whether the Appellant and her family members were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure for retracting their statements. Such a report be presented before the Trial Court within 2 weeks subject to the right of objection to Respondent No. 1 and his co-accused, if there is any finding against them in such report; and;
(vi) the Trial Court will closely observe the demeanour of Respondent No.1 or his counsel during further crossexamination of the Appellant, PW¬4, PW-5 and other important prosecution witnesses. No minacious gesture or appeasing expressions be allowed so that the voluntary, free and unpolluted version of all the material witnesses is brought on record.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR appeared for for Petitioner-Complainant and Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR apeared for the ccused and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. apeared for the State of Karnataka.
Case Details:-
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3297 OF 2023
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 3312 OF 2021]
Munilakshmi .....Appellant
Versus
Narendra Babu & Anr. …..Respondents
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy