JAYENDRA SARASWATHI SWAMIGAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 10-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JA YENDRA SARAS WA THI SWAMIGAL 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
JANUARY IO, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 437, 439; Evidence Act, 
Section I 0, 30-Bail-Grant of-Accused is entitled to bail only when there 
C is no prima facie case against him-Conspiracy and murder-Allegation that 
deceased had made serious complaints against accused and told witnesses of 
danger to his life has little value in the absence of evidence to indicate that 
these complaints were made known to accused or' he had shown any resentment 
against deceased for making such complaints-Confession of co-accused not 
D admissible as there is no strong proof of conspiracy-Prima facie case made 
out for grant of bail. 
Bail in Non-bailable offences-Relevant factors while granting-
Discussed. 
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32-Dying declaration-Deposition of 
E witness that deceased informed him about danger to his life does not relate 
to cause of his death so as to fall under Section 32, hence not admissible in 
evidence. 
Prosecution case was that petitioner-appellant entered into a 
F conspiracy to kill the deceased with the help of co-accused. The co-accused 
entered the office of the deceased in the evening and caused multiple 
injuries to him resulting in his death. It is alleged that motive for crime 
was various complaints alleged to have been made by the deceased levelling 
serious allegations, both against personal character of petitioner and also 
his style of functioning as Shankaracharya of the Mutt. A month before 
G crime, deceased had sent letter as last warning levelling various allegations. 
H 
Petitioner was arrested for the offence. He moved bail petition before 
High Court, which was rejected. His second bail petition was also rejected. 
Hence present appeal. 
160 
'•
JA YENDRA SARAS WA THI r. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
161 
Petitioner-appellant contended that the specific case of the A 
I l 
prosecution at the time of the hearing of the two bail applications before 
the High Court was that a huge sum of money amounting to Rs.SO lakhs 
was withdrawn from an account of the Mutt maintained in ICICI Bank, 
for making payment to the hirelings. In this court, State was directed to 
give particulars of the bank account for such transactions and also to B 
produce the copy of the account and the passbook. However State took a 
different stand that an agreement had been entered into for sale of SO acres 
of land belonging to Kanchi Janakalyan Trust for Rs.S crores, wherein 
an advance of Rs. SO lakhs in cash was received. It was this money which 
was retained in cash by the petitioner all along from which payment was 
made to the hirelings after the conspiracy was hatched; that in view of c 
Section 30 of the Evidence Act confession of a co-accused is a very weak 
type of evidence which can only be taken into consideration to lend 
assurance to the prosecution case; that confession of A-4 came to be 
retracted subsequently and also that of A-2 have very little evidentiary 
value in order to sustain the charge against him. 
D 
Prosecution relied upon copies of 39 letters, which were allegedly 
recovered from the house of the deceased himself and confessional 
). 
statement of A-2 and A-4 stating that petitioner offered Rs.SO lakhs for 
getting rid of the deceased. Prosecution contended that in view of Section 
IO of the Evidence Act, anything said, done or written by any one of the 
accused is a relevant fact as against each of the persons conspiring to E 
commit a crime; that there is also evidence of dying-declaration in order 
to fasten the liability upon the petitioner and for this reliance is placed 
upon the statement of SV, who stated that he knew deceased and used to 
talk to him and on the fateful day, he had contacted him over phone and 
told him that his petition presented to HR&CE Department was numbered F 
and if any danger came to him, petitioner alone would be responsible for 
the same; that there are two other witnesses who have heard the petitioner 
telling some of the co-ac.cused to eliminate the deceased; that the 
prohibition contained in Section 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C. would be applicable to 
the Courts entertaining a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
• 
HELD: I.I The considerations which normally weigh with the Court 
in granting bail in non-bailable offences are-the nature and seriousness 
of the offence; the character 

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