Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Honor Killing Case: Mamta Nair vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 12, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 433
Judges: N.V. Ramana (Chief Justice of India), A.S. Bopanna J., Hrishikesh Roy J.

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused when the Supreme Court had previously cancelled his bail due to the existence of prima facie evidence against him? This question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in a recent case concerning the cancellation of bail in a case of alleged honor killing. The Supreme Court, in this case, was hearing an appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, which had granted bail to the accused, despite the Supreme Court having previously cancelled his bail. The bench comprised Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of the appellant’s husband, who was allegedly killed by family members due to their disapproval of his marriage with the appellant. The mother-in-law of the appellant, also the mother of the deceased, had filed a complaint which led to the registration of FIR No. 235 of 2017 at Police Station Karni Vihar. The FIR was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant’s brother-in-law (respondent No. 2) was accused of being the main conspirator in the murder. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, had granted bail to the respondent No. 2, which was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, initially granted bail to the respondent No. 2 on 03.11.2017. This order was challenged by the mother-in-law of the appellant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail, noting that there was prima facie material against the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, the High Court again granted bail to the respondent No. 2 on 01.12.2020, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court granted bail based on the contention of the respondent No. 2 that the statement of the appellant had been recorded and that her statement favoured the respondent. However, the High Court did not provide any reasons for granting bail.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 452: “House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120B: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court had granted bail in a mechanical manner without considering the facts of the case and the previous order of the Supreme Court cancelling the bail of respondent No. 2.
• It was contended that the High Court had failed to provide any reasons for granting bail, except for mentioning the contention of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant’s statement had been recorded.
• The appellant argued that the High Court should not have granted bail based on a single statement of the appellant, especially when the entire evidence was yet to be assessed by the Sessions Court.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:

• The counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that the statement of the appellant had been recorded and that her statement was in favour of the respondent No. 2.
• Based on this, the respondent No. 2 sought bail.

State of Rajasthan’s Arguments:

• The State of Rajasthan did not make any specific arguments, but supported the appellant’s contention that the bail should be cancelled.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to respondent No. 2 despite the Supreme Court’s previous order cancelling his bail and the existence of prima facie evidence against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Previous order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2018, which had cancelled the bail of the respondent No. 2. The Supreme Court had noted that there was prima facie material against the respondent No. 2.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The previous order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2018 was relied upon by the Court to emphasize that there was prima facie evidence against the respondent No. 2 and that the High Court should not have granted bail without a significant change in circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the fact that the High Court had granted bail without providing any reasons and without considering the previous order of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have granted bail based on a single statement of the appellant, especially when the entire evidence was yet to be assessed by the Sessions Court. The Court also noted that there was no significant change in circumstances that warranted the grant of bail.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not provided any reasons for granting bail. The Court noted that the High Court had only referred to the contention of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant’s statement had been recorded, but had not given any reasons as to why this was sufficient to grant bail. The Supreme Court also noted that it had previously cancelled the bail of the respondent No. 2 after taking note of the fact situation and concluding that there was prima facie material against him. The Court held that the mere examination of the appellant could not be considered a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No. 2 and enlarge him on bail.

The Supreme Court also observed that the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before arriving at a conclusion. The Court held that it was premature to conclude on the basis of a stray sentence and that merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her statement was of no consequence.

The Supreme Court quoted its previous order: “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.”

The Supreme Court also stated, “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.”

The Court further stated, “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 conclusion.”

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations and directly concluded that the High Court’s order was not sustainable.

The majority opinion was delivered by a bench of three judges, with no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court should provide reasons for granting bail, especially when a higher court has previously cancelled the bail of the same accused.
• A single statement of a witness cannot be the sole basis for granting bail, especially when the entire evidence is yet to be assessed by the trial court.
• The High Court should not grant bail when there is no significant change in circumstances.
• Trial courts should expedite the trial process, especially in cases involving serious offences.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent No. 2, Mukesh Chaudhary, to surrender before the Court of Upper District and Sessions Judge, Sr. No. 7, Jaipur City. The Court also directed the trial court to 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 the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not grant bail when the Supreme Court has previously cancelled the bail of the same accused due to prima facie evidence, unless there is a significant change in circumstances. This case reinforces the principle that bail orders should be reasoned and based on a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent No. 2, and directed the respondent No. 2 to surrender before the trial court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had not provided any reasons for granting bail and that the mere examination of the appellant could not be considered a change in circumstance. The Supreme Court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial process.