ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 18-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022)
JANUARY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss. 302, 120B, 114 – Bail – Grant of, when not proper – FIR was
lodged against unknown persons initially for offences punishable
u/s.304A, IPC and ss.177, 184 & 134, Motor Vehicles Act
considering the story narrated by respondent no.2 that his wife
was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking
together – However, later it was revealed that he hatched a criminal
conspiracy along with co-accused persons to kill his wife and treat
the offence as an accident – Charged u/ss.302, 120(B), 114, IPC –
Bail rejected by Sessions Court – Filed application before High
Court u/s.439, allowed by Single Judge – On appeal, held: Merely
because the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot
be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the course of
the investigation the evidence has been collected and prima facie
the complete chain of events is established – While releasing
respondent no.2 on bail, the Single Judge has not at all adverted to
any of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation,
which is a part of the charge-sheet – In view of the seriousness of
the offence and the nature and gravity of the offence committed by
respondent no.2, the High Court ought not to have released him on
bail – Impugned order unsustainable on law as well as on facts, set
aside – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.177, 184, 134.
Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered/relevant
considerations – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The impugned order passed by the High Court
directing to release respondent no.2 herein on bail is
unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. Whatever reasons
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 694
694
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
are given by the High Court are not germane. The High Court
has not at all adverted to the relevant material/evidence collected
during the course of the investigation, which are the part of the
charge-sheet. During the course of the investigation and even as
per the charge-sheet it is alleged that for the monetary benefits,
respondent no.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-
accused to kill his wife and tried to make out an accidental case.
During the course of the investigation, it has been revealed that
respondent no.2 took the accidental insurance policy jointly with
his wife on 29.09.2020 of Rs. 60 lakhs. The date of the offence is
26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. During the course of the investigation
and from the call details, it has been revealed that respondent
no.2 was in constant touch on phone with the other coaccused
from 4:22 a.m. to 6:25 a.m. on 26.12.2020. During the course of
the investigation and as per the charge-sheet, according to the
prosecution, as a part of the conspiracy, respondent no.2 took
his wife to Hanumanji Temple on foot and as he got the chance in
the way, he made phone call to the co-accused to finalise the
plan. Co-accused made phone call to another co-accused (driver
of the Swift Car) and thereafter the said co-accused hit the
deceased by the said car and committed murder from the back
side so as to consider it as an accidental death. During all these
times, all the accused were in touch on phone calls. One another
reason given by the High Court to release respondent no.2 on
bail is that the accused has deep root in the society and no
apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with
the evidence/witnesses is expressed. In a case of committing
the offence under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and in a case
of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the
seriousness of the offence, the aforesaid can hardly be a ground
to release the accused on bail. Therefore, looking to the
seriousness of the offence and looking to the nature and gravity
of the offence committed by respondent no.2, the High Court
ought not to have released respondent no.2 on bail. While
releasing respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all
considered the parameters to be considered while releasing the
accused on bail and that too in a serious offence of murder and
hatching conspiracy to kill his wife. The impugned order passed
ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
by the High Court is quashed and set 

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