BHOOPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 29-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
188
BHOOPENDRA SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021)
OCTOBER 29, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Bail: Grant of – Correctness of – On facts, 60 year old women
accused of murder of village sarpanch – Case of previous enimity
between accused and the victim – Four previous bail application
rejected – Fifth bail application granted by the High Court –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court failed to
notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity
of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused – High
Court proceeded on the erroneous basis that no specific or overt
act attributed to the accused – Also, there was no change in
circumstances warranting the grant of bail – Thus, the order of the
High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned order granting bail is
unsustainable. The High Court failed to notice relevant
circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime
and the role attributed to the second respondent. The High Court
has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no specific or overt
act has been assigned to the second respondent. There was no
change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The
impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High
Court is set aside and the application for bail filed by the second
respondent is rejected. [Para 19, 20][199-B-D]
1.2 The final report under Section 173 of the CrPC indicates
that the investigation has revealed that the second respondent
was using as many as four sim cards and was in touch with one of
the sharp-shooters who was hired to commit the crime; and that
she was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 188
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
rental premises where she resided. The charge-sheet contains
an analysis of the call data records. Apart from the material drawn
from the call data records, it has been found during the course of
the investigation that in order to purchase the fire arms for the
crime, the husband of the second respondent, had paid an advance
of Rs. 40,000 to P, who had brought three katas and ten cartridges.
The weapons were kept in a room by AS in which the second
respondent was residing on a rental basis. Moreover, there is a
specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided
the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the
movements of the deceased to the killers. As regards the co-
accused, it has been submitted that during the course of the
investigation he was not found to be present at the scene of the
offence and was not charge-sheeted. [Para 12, 15][194-C-D;
196-C-E]
1.3 The deceased was due to testify in the trial in the prior
case under s. 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. There was no
change in circumstances. In this backdrop, the High Court having
failed to notice material circumstances bearing upon the grant of
bail to the second respondent and, having proceeded on a palpable
erroneous basis, a case for the setting aside of the order of the
High Court has been duly established. [Para 16][196-F-H]
Anil Kumar yadav v State(NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC
129; Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118;
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana Koli (2021) 6 SCC 230; Harjit Singh v
Inderpreet Singh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 633 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 12 SCC 129
referred to
Para 11
(2020) 2 SCC 118
referred to
Para 17
(2021) 6 SCC 230
referred to
Para 18
BHOOPENDRA SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1279 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Vth Bail Application No.11627 of 2021.
Namit Saxena, Awnish Maithani, Ms. Arushi Dhawan, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Milind Kumar, Abhishek
Sharma, Akshat Aggarwal, Ashish Pandey, Brijender Singh Dhull, Dr.
Pooja Jha, Ms. Nandita Jha, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 11 August 2021 of a
Single Judge at th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.