The State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision in matters of serious offence and challenge the impugned judgments and orders where it is found that the accused are released on bail - Supreme Court.

     

The State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision in matters of serious offence. 

        The Supreme Court of India has quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat who released the respondents/accused in two different criminal appeal case in connection to the case involving offences under Sections 302, 114 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 135, 37(1) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 

        By the impugned judgment of the High Court, the appellant was deeply aggrieved, due to which the Appellant, preferred appeal in the Supreme Court after two years from the date of release of respondents . The Appellant, her husband and aunt were collecting scrap when 5 accused including the respondents started beating and  abusing them.  The appellant's husband later died in the hospital because of  merciless beating after tying him in a post. 

        A First Information Report was registered against those 5 accused under the sections of IPC, Gujarat Police Act,  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Respondents in the Present case moved a bail application before the Learned Sessions Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved they preferred appeal in the the High Court. The Court released both accused by observing that except the fact that the accused were standing near the place of incident, there is no further material against them.

    👉The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the High Court has materially erred in releasing the accused on bail who brutally murdered her husband;

    👉 the Court has not appreciated the thorough investigation after which they were chargesheeted;

    👉the Court has not considered the gravity of the offence;

    👉the High Court has not appreciated the fact that the Appellant and her aunt are the eye witnesses;

    👉the entire incident is supported by mobile record, photographs and by CCTV;

    👉the accused were identified in the Test Identification Parade by both the eye witnesses; and

    👉as per the post mortem report, the deceased died due to anti mortem injury caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries.

    The Supreme Court took the pleasure to mention as to why the State has not preferred appeal in such a serious matter. The State is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book.

    Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent/accused Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Shri Purvish Jitendra Malkan learned counsel for respondent/accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya submitted on behalf of their respective client.

    👉there are no allegations of misuse of liberty and therefore the Court may not cancel the bail granted by the High Court after two and a half years; and

    👉even after the bail trial was proceeded and except the investigation officer, most of the witnesses are examined and therefore bail may not be cancelled.

    

After hearing both the parties at length, the Court observing every facts of the case viewed that the High Court has released the accused on bail in a most perfunctory and casual manner and has not at all appreciated the evidence collected during investigation. Therefore the judgments and orders passed by the High Court are unsustainable on facts as well as on law.

    As regard the submissions of the accused that  bail granted more than two and half years ago, may not be cancelled because  there are no allegations of misuse of liberty, so , the court opined that 

"As per the settled preposition of law, cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings".

"There are different considerations while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach of condition etc., and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing on bail. Once it is found that the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled".

 Therefore, in view of the reasons,  the appeals succeeded. The Court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority within the period of one week from the date of Judgment failing which the non-bailable warrants will be issued against them.

Before concluding the instant judgment, the Court observed that State has failed to protect the rights of victim by not filing the appeals against the impugned judgments and orders. The State was ought to have preferred to file the appeals challenging the said order because they are the custodian of the social interest of the community at large.

        Every State appoint the Director of Prosecution, in concurrence of the Chief Justice of High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years to be eligible to be Director of Prosecution. 

        The Supreme Court noticed the serious failure in the performance of duty by  Director of Prosecution. The Court  emphasized  that the Director of Prosecution being the very important post as far as the administration of justice is concerned, it is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take prompt decision in matter where rights of victim is denied. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution and the State to ensure that the guilty are booked and punished.

        In future the State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision decision in matters of serious offence and challenge the impugned judgments and orders where it is found that the accused are released on bail - Supreme Court said. 

Coram:

Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathana

Case: Jayaben versus Tejas Kanu Bhai Zala & Anr ( Cr. Appeal no. 1655 of 2021)

Jayaben versus Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya & Anr (Cr. Appeal 1656 of 2021)

DOJ: 10.01.2022.