SEEMA SINGH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 18-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
SEEMA SINGH
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2018)
APRIL 18, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Bail – Grant of – When justified – Appellant’s daughter got
married to respondent no.2 but thereafter went to live at appellant’s
place due to social non-acceptance of the marriage by family
members of respondent No.2 – Subsequently, Respondent No.2
planned a trip with his wife, to New Delhi/Leh, who died during the
course of their journey as the car they were travelling in  allegedly
met with an accident – FIR registered by appellant u/ss. 498-A, 302
and 120-B IPC – State Government transferred the case to CBI –
Respondent no.2 was arrested but granted bail by High Court – On
appeal, held: No doubt, the offence with which respondent no.2 is
charged is a serious one, however, that by itself cannot be the ground
to outrightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming
circumstances justifying grant of bail – It is not disputed that after
the incident, appellant, other family members as well as some doctors
who were close to the family had arrived and post mortem was
conducted in their presence but nobody nurtured any suspicion –
FIR was lodged nine days after the incident – Further, evidentiary
value of reports of CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL and IIT relied on by appellant
are yet to be tested, more so, when these reports are given on the
basis of studies undertaken much after the incident – Impugned
order is a speaking order – Reasons given by High Court for
granting bail to respondent no.2, cannot be termed as perverse  –
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498-A, 302 and 120.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the limited scope of
interference with an order granting bail and keeping in mind the
parameters on which such an order can be interdicted, the reasons
given by the High Court to grant bail to respondent No. 2, cannot
be termed as perverse.  The High Court kept in mind the relevant
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 355
                                                   355
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
factors while considering the bail application. No doubt, the
offence with which respondent No. 2 is charged is a serious one.
That by itself cannot be the ground to outrightly deny the benefit
of bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying
grant of bail. The High Court has discussed those factors. No
doubt, the appellants have extensively referred to the reports of
CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL and IIT.  Their evidentiary value is yet to
be tested, more so, when these reports are given on the basis of
studies undertaken much after the incident. Report of AIIMS is
based on the photographs and not on the basis of postmortem of
the body of the deceased. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 has
made a submission that AIIMS has not given any conclusive
opinion. According to him, same is the position qua other reports
as well. These reports are not to be examined in depth at this
stage as that exercise has to be done by the trial court when
these reports are proved by the makers of the report and they
are cross-examined thereupon. Moreover, in a criminal case
where respondent No. 2 is charged of committing murder, the
burden is upon the prosecution to establish, beyond reasonable
doubts, that the death of appellant’s daughter was the result of a
murder and that it is respondent No. 2 who committed the said
murder.  His defence about alleged accident is only one of the
factors that would be looked into as to whether such a story put
forth by him is correct or not and the effect thereof. The High
Court has taken into consideration relevant factors while granting
the bail to respondent No.2. The impugned order is also a
speaking order with reasons. [Paras 13, 14][370-G-H; 371-A, E-G]
1.2  It was not disputed that after the incident, the appellant,
other family members as well as some doctors who were close to
the family had arrived. Postmortem was conducted in their
presence.  At that stage, nobody nurtured any suspicion. FIR
was lodged nine days after the incident. The material collected
by the CBI during investigation is documentary in nature which
are given on the basis of photographs produced before them and
had to be tested during trial.  [Para 15] [372-G-H]
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2016)
15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 :
[2010] 12 SCR 1165 – h

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