LexMUNILAKSHMI versus NARENDRA BABU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1058 : 2023 INSC 943 1058 CASE DETAILS MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 3297 of 2023) OCTOBER 20, 2023 [SURYA KANT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Bail granted to Respondent No.1 accused of off ences u/ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34, IPC, if to be cancelled, in view of events subsequent to the grant of bail. Bail – Scope of interference – Respondent No.1 was specifi cally named as the main conspirator in the murder of his wife – However, change of stance by most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief – Allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of infl uencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the deceased and various attempts to take away her life – Cancellation of bail: Held: This Court has a narrow scope of interference in an order granting bail while exercising its power of judicial review and will be invariably reluctant to interfere in such order even if it has a diff erent opinion – Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 on one hand and the right of the orderly society, on the other – The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration is drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that will ensure that a fair and free trial is not hampered – However, if it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by infl uencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to fl ee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail – In the present case, the Appellant (mother of the Deceased) was vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking cancellation of bail given to Respondent No.1 – In her examination-in-chief, she specifi cally 1059 named Respondent No.1 as the main conspirator in the murder of her daughter – However, the sudden change of stance shown by the most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief cannot be a mere coincidence – Therefore, appellant’s sudden somersault, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of infl uencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life – Respondent No.1 has the potential to infl uence the investigation or the witnesses – There is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses – Impugned order set aside, bail granted to Respondent No.1 cancelled – Further directions issued inter alia for providing security to the appellant and her family till their fresh depositions – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 142 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34. [Paras 19, 20, 25, 32] Bail – Misuse of concession of bail – Duty of Courts: Held: Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and eff ective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or infl uence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings – Where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfi ed that there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession of bail, it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of justice to withdraw such concession forthwith. [Paras 21, 22] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Recalling witnesses: Held: The unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an eff ective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial – This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only u/Article 142 but also u/s.311, CrPC, be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto – Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding – A person can be called and examined though not summoned MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR. 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. as a witness, or can be recalled, or re-examined so as to throw light upon the imputations –
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.