JAYABEN versus TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 10-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 18
18
JAYABEN
v.
TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1655 of 2021)
JANUARY 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Appeal: Murder case – Complainant’s appeal against release
of accused by High Court – Appellant-original complainant and
her aunt and one another are the eye witnesses who have identified
the accused in Test Identification Parade(TIP) – The entire incident
was captured/recorded in the CCTV footages and the mobile phone
– During the course of the investigation, the punchnama of the
place of the incident was prepared, statements of the witnesses were
recorded; test identification of the accused was carried out; CCTV
footages and DVR from the place of incident were recovered – Pipe
and the belt used in commission of the crime were recovered –
Judgment of High Court releasing the accused on bail – Held: Not
unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law – Deceased was
brutally beaten by the accused and despite that and without
considering the seriousness of the offences alleged and despite the
statements of the eyewitnesses, High Court released the accused on
bail in a most perfunctory and casual manner – High Court did not
at all consider the gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence
collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the
charge sheet – In such a serious matter and looking to the gravity
of the offences and considering the statements of eyewitnesses and
that the entire incident was recorded in the CCTV footages and the
mobile phone, the High Court has committed grave error in releasing
respondents No.1- accused on bail.
Bail: Cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the
wrong order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on
bail stand on different footings – There are different considerations
while considering the application for cancellation of bail for breach
of conditions etc., and while considering an order passed by the
Court releasing the accused on bail.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
Administration of criminal justice – Release of accused in
murder case – Non filing of appeal by prosecution – Held: State
ought to have preferred appeals challenging the order passed by
the High Court releasing the accused on bail – It is for the State to
take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted
against the social interest of the community to book – It was the
duty of the Director of prosecution to take prompt action which he
failed to perform.
Administration of justice – In criminal matters – Director of
Prosecution – Role of – Held: It is a very important post in so far as
the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned –
Director of Prosecution is appointed by the State Government in
exercise of powers u/s.25A CrPC – That his is a crucial role is evident
from conditions such as in s.25A(2) CrPC, which stipulates a
minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to
be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an
appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice
of the High Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.25A.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the settled preposition of law, cancellation
of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by
the High Court releasing the accused on bail stand on different
footings. There are different considerations while considering
the application for cancellation of bail for breach of conditions
etc., and while considering an order passed by the Court releasing
the accused on bail. Once, it is found that the order passed by
the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable,
necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to
be cancelled. [Para 9.4][25-H; 26-A-B]
2. By not filing the appeals by the State against the impugned
judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a
serious matter, the State has failed to protect the rights of the
victim. This was the fit case where the State ought to have
preferred the appeals challenging the orders passed by the High
Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal matters the party
who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the
custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so
JAYABEN v. TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
it is for the State to take all the steps necessa

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