Mamta Nair vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 July, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Mamta Nair vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 July, 2021

Author: Hon’Ble The Justice

Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy

                                                              NON­REPORTABLE

                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2021
                                 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3679 of 2021)

                         Mamta Nair                                   .…Appellant(s)
                                                     Versus

                         State of Rajasthan & Anr.                  …. Respondent(s)

                                                 ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is assailing the order dated

01.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Criminal Miscellaneous

Fourth Bail Application No.13680/2020. The appellant

herein is the sister of respondent No. 2 and the wife of

the deceased. Since it is alleged that the respondent No. 2

is the main conspirator in the crime leading to the killing

of the husband of the appellant, the appellant is

aggrieved by the order impugned whereunder the

respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

3. The issue relates to the complaint in FIR No. 235 of
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2021.07.12
16:59:47 IST
Reason:

2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered in the Police Station

Page 1 of 6
Karni Vihar for the offence under Sections 302, 452 and

120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The mother­ in­law of the

appellant Smt. Rama Devi Nair, who is also the mother of

the deceased had lodged the said complaint. According to

the complainant and the appellant herein, the husband

of the appellant has been killed by the family members of

the appellant as an honor killing since they had not

agreed to the marriage between the deceased and the

appellant. The further details relating to the incident

need not be referred to herein since the allegations and

the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties

in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court.

Further, the limited aspect required in a matter relating

to bail has already been taken note by this Court while

disposing of an earlier Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2018

relating to the same incident.

4. The grievance in the instant appeal is that the High

Court without taking into consideration all these aspects

of the matter has enlarged the respondent No. 2 on bail

Page 2 of 6
in a mechanical manner through an order bereft of

reasons.

5. In that background we have heard Ms. Indira Jaising,

learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri H.D.

Thanvi, learned Government Advocate for the State of

Rajasthan, Shri V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for

respondent No. 2 and perused the impugned order as

also the other material on record.

6. The impugned order dated 01.12.2020 in fact refers to

the contention of the counsel for the respondent No. 2

herein that on an earlier instance this Court had

cancelled the bail and thereafter the statement of

witnesses has been recorded. The counsel for the

respondent No. 2 referred to the evidence of the appellant

herein and in that context sought for bail to release

respondent No. 2. However, the High Court has not

assigned any reason whatsoever except referring to the

said contention. Be that as it may, as noted, an earlier

order dated 03.11.2017 had been passed by the High

Court enlarging the respondent No. 2, Mukesh

Page 3 of 6
Chaudhary on bail. The mother­in­law of the appellant

herein Smt. Rama Devi Nair had assailed the said order.

This Court while taking note of the fact situation and

before concluding that the bail is to be cancelled has

recorded as hereunder:­

“ The reading of the FIR and the charge
sheet shows that prima facie there is
material against the respondent No. 2 and
in view of that, we are of the opinion that for
the time being, it is not proper to extend the
liberty of bail to the respondent No. 2. In
view of the pendency of the trial, we are not
inclined to go into the details of the case.”

7. The documents already taken note by this Court

indicates that there is prima facie material against the

respondent No. 2. Though the appellant herein, i.e., the

wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention

has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not

the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to

conclude on the basis of a stray sentence. Further,

merely classifying the appellant as the principal star

witness and referring to her statement is of no

consequence since the entire evidence will have to be

assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a

Page 4 of 6
conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an

earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had

arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie

material against the respondent No. 2, the mere

examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered

as a change in circumstance for the High Court to

consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No.

2 and enlarge him on bail.

8. In the above background, we are of the considered

opinion that the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur,

impugned herein is not sustainable. The same is

accordingly set aside and the bail granted to respondent

No. 2 is cancelled. We, therefore, direct the respondent

No. 2­Mukesh Chaudhary to surrender before the Court

of Upper District and Sessions Judge, Sr. No. 7, Jaipur

City. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall

consider the case being uninfluenced by any of the

observations herein.

Page 5 of 6

9. The High Court at the time of passing the impugned

order has taken note that 17 witnesses out of 47

witnesses have been examined so far. It is not in dispute

that at this point in time 21 witnesses have been

examined and the trial is proceeding. Taking into

consideration the nature of the offence, it is appropriate

that the trial be concluded at the earliest. The trial court

shall therefore make all efforts to conclude the trial and

dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible but in

any event not later than one year from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

11. Pending applications if any, shall stand disposed
of.

………….…………CJI
(N.V. RAMANA)

………….…………….J.

(A.S. BOPANNA)

………….…………….J.

(HRISHIKESH ROY)
New Delhi,
July 12, 2021

Page 6 of 6



Source link