Summary
A thirteen-year-old schoolboy was kidnapped in Delhi in November 2014 for a ransom of Rs 1 crore and found dead in a drain the next day. The accused, in custody since November 2014 save for interim bail, was granted regular bail by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in March 2022 on the footing that the charge-sheet had been filed, that the only witness against him was an approver who had turned hostile, and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. The parents of the deceased appealed. The Supreme Court set aside the bail.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail under Section 439 CrPC to an accused charged with the kidnapping for ransom and murder of a child, on the ground that the charge-sheet had been filed and the sole witness against him was a hostile approver, when crucial witnesses remained to be examined.
- Whether long custody and the slow pace of trial outweigh the risk to a fair trial posed by release when material witnesses are yet to depose in a grave offence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 173 and 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Filing of the charge-sheet does not by itself justify bail; the High Court failed to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the material relied on by the prosecution and the fact that crucial witnesses were yet to be examined, so its exercise of discretion was improper. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The accused stands trial for kidnapping for ransom and murder of a thirteen-year-old; the gravity of these offences weighed against release while the trial was under way. (¶¶ 3, 8, 11)
Held
- The High Court proceeded on erroneous premises — that PW-3 was an approver and the only witness against the accused — and failed to notice that crucial witnesses were yet to be examined; releasing the accused at that stage would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial, and the apprehension of the victim's parents and the prosecution that witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance. (¶¶ 5, 10)
- Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the witnesses remaining to be examined, the grant of bail was an improper exercise of discretion; the accused shall surrender forthwith and the trial, pending since 2014, shall be conducted day to day and concluded preferably within one year. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's order of 02.03.2022 in Bail Application No. 196 of 2022 granting bail set aside; the second respondent to surrender forthwith and the trial court to conclude the trial on a day-to-day basis, preferably within one year.