INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court is the highest authority that safeguards the fundamental rights of every individual, regardless of whether there is a defendant or a petitioner; fundamental rights cannot be ignored. The same was done by the Supreme Court of India in many cases, including the

Kesavananda Bharti case, the S R Bommai case, and the same in a recent case named Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023. That case doesn’t only include fundamental rights, but also includes the principle of proportionality.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. This present case involves the petitioner Praveen Rathore and the respondent State of Rajasthan. Praveen Rathore is alleged to have been involved in the murder of Chetan Prakash.
2. In February 2018, Chetan Prakash was found dead near a railway culvert in Jhalawar, Rajasthan. His nails had turned blue, and later, the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report found out the cause of the death, which was Ketamine Injection.
3. Shah Rukh Khan, who was the co-accused in the murder, and Parveen Rathore were arrested by the Police in June and August 2018.
4. Some evidence against Parveen Rathore was found, including Forensic evidence. Physical evidence and call records of the accused Praveen Rathore, Shah Rukh khan, and the victim’s wife Anita Meena.
5. It was suspected to have conspiracy between Parveen Rathore and the victim’s wife Anita Meena, as they both were lovers before Anita’s marriage with Chetan Prakash.
6. FIR NO 69/2018 was filed and imposed charges of Conspiracy under section 120B, Murder under section 302, Destruction of Evidence under section 201 of the India Penal Code.
7. The Session Court of Jhalawar, Rajasthan, put Praveen Rathore behind bars and rejected the Bail Application. In 2023, the High Court of Rajasthan rejected Praveen Rathore’s bail application and continued to detain him, having examined 53 of 76 witnesses, including key ones.
8. Praveen Rathore filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India in 2023, and he was granted bail on some conditions.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. A person who is accused of a crime and the final judgement has not been decided yet, can be put behind bars for 4.5 years? Is it a violation of Article 21, Right to Life and Liberty of the indian Constitution or not?
2. Whether the scenario of this case satisfied the conditions mentioned in section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
3. Should a Bail be granted based on the witness examined, the gravity of the case, and the progress of the trial?
4. Does the Supreme Court hold the power of discretion to change in Right to Liberty for justice and Fairness?

JUDGEMENT

The court clarified that it is merely considering the question which has been referred to it, and after thorough examination of relevant precedents and interpretation of the provisions, it had laid down the following in the judgment –

1. The Supreme Court of India was hereby called to hear the Special Leave Petition. In 2018, at Sadar Police Station, FIR No. 69/2018 was filed by the State for the murder of Chetan Prakash. Parveen Rathore was called an accused in the murder of Chetan Prakash Meena in 2018 for the offences of Murder under section 302 and Criminal Conspiracy under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The court was directed to decide whether bail for the offence of murder should be granted to Praveen Rathore or not. The court was also concerned with the gravity of the charges filed against Parveen Rathore.
3. The First point clarified by the court was concerning Parveen Rathore, as he was kept behind bars for over 4.5 years without being convicted for the murder of Chetan Prakash in 2018. Praveen Rathore was arrested with co-accused Shah Rukh Khan in 2018.
4. Article 21, Right to Liberty, is a Fundamental Right which is given under Part 3 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it cannot be ignored and shall be available for every individual, whether he/she is an accused or not. The Supreme Court of India is concerned with Praveen Rathore under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as despite being accused of murder, he still has a right protected under Article 21.
5. 53 out of 76 witnesses were examined till 2023, including the key witnesses, but the final judgement of the act of Praveen Rathore in the murder of Chetan Prakash has to be decided.
6. Special leave petition, which was filed by Parveen Rathore in the Supreme Court for his bail in this case, was accepted by keeping a view to Article 21 Right to Liberty. State of Rajasthan opposed and raised a concern in front of the court that Parveen Rathore may tamper with the witnesses and influence them and compromise the remaining trial of the case. Further Supreme Court emphasised that keeping Parveen Rathore in Judicial Custody is a kind of pre-conviction in the murder of Chetan Prakash, as he has already been kept in jail for 4.5 years without being convicted.
7. In respect of the Special Leave Petition filed by Praveen Rathore, the Court ordered that the detention of Praveen Rathore does not match with the current circumstances of the case and subsequently granted bail on some conditions which should be made by the trial court. Any violation of the condition would lead to the rejection of the bail under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The Supreme Court also ordered the trial court to get the conclusion of the case at the earliest time.

REASONING

In this case court analysed some previous precedents and principles and referred them to the bail proceeding of Praveen Rathore.

1. Firstly, the Court stated that it’s a proceeding of a bail application filed by the accused instead of proving the accused guilty of a crime or not.
2. Firstly, the court observed that Parveen Rathore was arrested on 18 August 2018, and the bail application was rejected by the session court and the High Court of Rajasthan. A period of 4.5 years was consumed by Praveen Rathore without any conviction, and the decision of the case has not been finalised. During this time, he was under judicial custody. This Long period is a kind of punishment of pre-conviction for the accused, and it is a clear violation of Article 21, Right to Life and Liberty of the Indian Constitution.
3. 53 out of 76 witnesses have already been examined, including important witnesses Chauthmal Kashyap and Manohar Rathore, both have already been examined, and most importantly, most of the witnesses are the people who gave documents and technical confirmation of the case. The Court observed that the risk of the accused interfering with them is diminished.
4. There was a concern raised by the respondent (State of Rajasthan), that the accused may still interfere and tamper with the case. So the Court stated the conditions behind the bail approval of the accused, and the conditions were not to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and the petitioner will take part in all the court proceedings of the case. Any misconduct by the petitioner will lead to the cancellation of the bail under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Further, the Court also emphasised that the Right to get a speedy trial is part of Fundamental rights mentioned in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, decided in the landmark judgement Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR 1979 of the Supreme Court. The same precedent was used in this case, concerning the bail application of the petitioner, the Court stated that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 4.5 years without any conviction. So, the Petitioner has the Right to get a speedy trial.
6. The Court further emphasised the Principle of Proportionality, in a case, proportionality has to be balanced even in the case of severe charges. As the witnesses and evidence of the case have already been recorded but yet the trial is delayed, and the petitioner is in judicial custody for over 4.5 years. This is not a proportionality; to satisfy the principle of Proportionality, a balance should be made.

CONCLUSION

The rights of any individual cannot be ignored, especially when it comes to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India, the highest authority and the protector of everyone, doesn’t matter whether the parties in the case are accused or not, but the right should be given at any cost.

Supreme Court observed that 4.5 years of judicial custody is a violation of fundamental rights, the advance trial has completed as 533 witnesses out of 76 have already been examined, and

there is no solid evidence to keep them applied on the petitioner. Subsequently, the Court granted bail with some conditions, not to tamper with witnesses, take part in any proceeding of the case, and not to conduct any misappropriate act.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70057037/
2. Various articles on search engines.

Written by Fardeen Khan; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.