ROHIT BISHNOI vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant-informant(Rohit Bishnoi) in this case filed a complaint against the four person(Budharam, Vikas Vishnoi, Shrawan Jani and Ram Kishor) under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of arms act, 1959 read with Section 25 and 27 of arms act, 1959 at Mandore Police Station, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan, alleging murder of the Appellant’s brother, Vikash Panwar (Deceased), aged 25 years. The Police, after conducting a thorough investigation, filed a Charge Sheet before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahanagar, Jodhpur on 19-08-2020 after taking cognizance of the aforementioned complaint and issuing process in accordance Budhram was charged under Sections 302, 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of arms act, 1959 read with Section 25 and 27 of arms act, 1959 and Rajendra Bishnoi and Vikash Vishnoi were charged under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC.

The respondent-accused(Vikash Vishnoi) submits an application seeking for the regular bail before Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajasthan which was dismissed by order dated 10 Nov, 2021 and the respondent-accused (Vikash Vishnoi) filed an application for the regular bail before the high court under Section 439 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16 April, 2021. Thereafter, respondent-accused Vikas Vishnoi filed a second bail application, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 16016 of 2021, before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 14 February, 2022, the High Court granted him bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Subsequently, the high court vide impugned judgment dated on 02.02.2023 allowed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Nos. 4265 of 2022 and 4823 of 2022 and thereby granted bail to the respondents-accused(Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi) respectively.

ISSUES

1. Whether the bail granted by the high court is reasonable or not?

ARGUMENTS 

Being aggrieved, the appellant-informant has preferred these appeals before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an impugned judgment have been passed by the HC without considering the fact and heinous nature of the crime and such crime result in the life imprisonment or even death penalty even though the High Court has not assigned the reasons for grant of bail. The High Court failed to consider the overwhelming material that would point towards the guilt of the accused. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness and on the basis thereof exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous and perverse manner and the court exercise discretion to grant bail must be guided by the reason to be recorded in the order granting bail. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar- [(2022) 4 SCC 497] and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- [(2022) 8 SCC 559]. It was also submitted of the same tenor   submission of learned counsel appearing for state that the I.O(investigating officers) collected the overwhelming evidence such as witnesses, CCTV footage, murder weapon, phone, bike etc. The high court overlooked the clear evidence pointing the guilt of accused and the accused not only involved in the conspiracy to kill the deceased but also actively participated in his murder. It was prayed that the present appeals be allowed, the impugned judgments be set aside and the bail bonds of the respondents-accused be cancelled. 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same do not suffer for its against the weight of evidence as that does not matter how serious the nature of the alleged offence, the accused should be entitled to be released on bail if the competent court is of the first view that the accused were not involve in the alleged crime. The conclusion of trail in connection with the FIR No134, 2020, would take the consider amount of time and it would against the justice and fundamental value of liberty to keep the accused in the custody for indefinite period, so, high court is right to grant bail to the accused and it was to say the there is no way that the accused would influence the witnesses when the statement of prosecution witness, Nirma who turned hostile was recorded by the trail court when the accused in the judicial custody. The respondents-accused have no intention to misuse the liberty granted. The learned counsel of respondent-accused Vikash Vishnoi submitted that he was only riding the motorcycle with the co-accused  at the time of incident. As regard the allegation against respondent-accused Rajendra Bishnoi that he hit the butt of a pistol on head of the deceased, it was submitted that it is baseless and there is no evidence to prove it. It is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed as being devoid of merit and the impugned judgments be affirmed.

JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme court on several occasions discuss factors consider by the court while granting bail and the primary which must be placed at balance while deciding bail matter are :

• The seriousness of the offence
• The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice
• The impact of release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses
• Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence

While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that while deciding bail it could be concluded that the decision has resulted from judicial exercise of its discretion vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh- [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi– [(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – [(2018) 12 SCC 129].

This court also ruled that an order granting bail in mechanical manner without recording reason would suffer from vice non application of mind, rendering it illegal vide Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh- [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)– [(2021) 6 SCC 230] ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (supra). 

As one of the prosecution’s witness Nirma turned hostile so there is possibility the respondent-accused influence other witness and tamper with evidence if they continue to remain on bail and only to the testimony of only one hostile witness exercised its discretion to grant bail is erroneous manner.

This case is not fit for the grant of bail to respondent-accused as given seriousness of the allegation on them. As high court is not right to grant the bail and the impugned judgment on 14.02.2022 and 02.02.2023 passed by high court are set aside.

The respondent-accused are on bail so their bail bond stands cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority within 2 weeks from today. 

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://main.sci.gov.in

This Article is written by Aman Maurya of Greater Noida College Of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin