MAMTA & ANR versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 24-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
MAMTA & ANR
v.
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No 878 of 2022)
MAY 24, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Bail – Grant of –
Factors to be considered – Allegation of murder of young child for
ransom against the second respondent – Grant of bail by the High
Court – Propriety of – Held: Exercise of discretion by the High
Court not proper – While granting bail, the High Court failed to
take into consideration that crucial witnesses were yet to be
examined, that release of the second respondent on bail, at this
stage, would impede a fair trial, and that there was an apprehension
that the witnesses may be tampered – Thus, the judgment and order
of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside – Issuance of
direction to the trial judge to conduct the trial expeditiously.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court while granting bail, failed to notice
the crucial aspects which has bearing on whether or not a case
for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section
439 of CrPC was established. Since the trial is presently underway,
this Court is not entering upon a discussion of the material which
has emerged during the course of the investigation, and during
the course of the trial. However, an important circumstance which
should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the
High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The
release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would run
a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the
appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be
tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role which
has been attributed to the second respondent and the crucial
witnesses which remain to be examined. The exercise of the
discretion by the High Court is improper. Thus, the judgment
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 548
548
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
and order of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside. The
second respondent to surrender forthwith. Since the trial is
pending since 2014, the trial judge is directed to conduct the
trial expeditiously. [Paras 10-12][551-G-H; 552-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.878 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No.196 of 2022.
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Yash
S. Vijay, Saurabh Mishra, Utkarsh Pratap, Advs. for the Appellants.
Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neela Kedar
Gokhale, Sourav Singh, Mohit Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ms.
Vishakha, Kartik Jasra, Randeep Sachdeva, Harish Nadda, Ashok
Panigrahi, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Adhishwar Suri,
Rajiv Mohan, Manvendra Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from an order dated 2 March 2022 of a
Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No 196 of
2022.
3. The second respondent is facing trial in connection with FIR
No 894 of 2014 dated 18 November 2014 for alleged offences punishable
under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District
East Delhi.  Following the submission of the charge-sheet under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731, charges have been framed.
Eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined.
4. The appellants are the parents of the deceased, who was a 13
year old Class VIII student.  The case of the prosecution is that he was
kidnapped for a ransom of rupees one crore and his dead body was
recovered from a nallah, day after the kidnapping of the child.  The
second respondent was arrested on 25 November 2014 and was in
1 “CrPC”
MAMTA & ANR v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
custody, except for the period when he was released on interim bail,
until 2 March 2022.
5. Dr Menaka Guruswamy, senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, submits that:
(i)
The High Court has proceeded on a manifestly erroneous
premise that PW 3 Urvashi, who deposed during the course
of the trial, is an approver;
(ii)
Crucial witnesses, including PW 15 (the caretaker) and PW
16 (the landlady) rema

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