The Supreme Court has aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court by which it granted bail to an accused for murder of the village sarpanch, after noting that the High Court did not consider the relevant considerations of seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused.
While directing the accused to surrender on or before 7 November 2021, a Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna has clarified that observations made in its judgment are only for the purpose of considering the application for bail and will have no bearing on the merits of the case or the pending trial.
Calling the High Court's order unsustainable, the Bench opined that the High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the accused.
The direction has been passed in an appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 August 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the High Court allowed the fifth bail application of the accused (second respondent in present case).
Challenging the High Court order, Advocate Namit Saxena, who appeared on behalf of the son of the deceased, submitted that the High Court is in error in proceeding on the basis that no overt act is attributed to the woman since the charge-sheet, which has been filed after investigation, indicates that she was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court on the following grounds:
The High Court has failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role which is attributed to the second respondent.
The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior case under Section 307 of the IPC and the murder was committed barely a fortnight prior to the date on which he was to depose.
The High Court had rejected four previous bail applications and there was no change in circumstances.
The High Court having failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of bail to the second respondent proceeded on a palpable erroneous basis.