STATE THROUGH C.B.I. versus AMARMANI TRIPTHI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 26-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STA TE THROUGH C.B.I. 
11. 
AMARMANI TRIP A THI 
SPETEMBER 26, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 437 and 439-High Court 
granting bail to accused who conspired and committed the murder of deceased 
C through other accused-State filing appeals against grant of bail to accused-
Held, from the materials on record, accused are prima facie involved in 
conspiracy and committed murder of the deceased-Accused tried to tamper 
with evidence, interfere with investigation and threaten/buy over witnesses 
using their political influence at the time of investigation and after grant of 
bail-Hence, appeals are allowed and accused are directed to surrender. 
D 
According to the prosecution, the murder of the deceased was a result 
of a criminal conspiracy among the respondents-husband and wife-and other 
accused. Respondent-husband, who was a State Minister at the relevant time, 
was having an illicit relationship with the deceased. This led to pregnancy of 
the deceased thrice. On the first two occasions, the pregnancy was aborted at 
E the instance of the respondent. On the third occasion, the deceased refused 
to abort the pregnancy. Respondent-wife, with the knowledge of her husband, 
got the deceased killed with the help of the other accused. A chargesheet was 
filed before trial court against all the accused including the respondents by 
the prosecution. Respondent-wife was absconding at the time of filing of the 
F chargesheet. She later surrendered before the Court when the bail application 
of her husband was rejected by the trial court on the ground she was 
absconding. The respondents were later granted bail by separate orders of 
the High Court. 
In appeal against the orders granting bail by the High Court, the 
G apIJ'!llant-State contended that there were enough material on record to prove 
that the respondents conspired and committed the murder of the deceased 
through other accused; that the respondent-husband interfered with the 
investigation by trying to side-track and mislead the investigation into a false 
trial, planting false stories in the media, creating false evidence and 
H 
454 
STATE THROUGHT C.B.I. v. AMARMANI TRIPATHI 
455 
threatening witnesses either directly or by using the police; that the A 
respondent managed to get the police officers, who were not toeing his line, 
transferred through his influence; that after the release on bail in pursuance 
to the order of the High Court, the respondents were attempting to threaten/ 
buy over witnesses; that there is every likelihood of the respondent-wife, who 
absconded earlier, to again flee if she continues to be on bail; and that if 
respondent-husband is alone granted bail, the threatening of witnesses will B 
be taken over by his wife. 
Respondents contended that there are no material showing any 
involvement of them in the murder of the deceased; that if the confessional 
statement of the co-accused, which linked the respondents in the crime, is C 
excluded, there is no material which link the respondents with the murder of 
the deceased; and that any action taken by the respondents in saving their 
marital life cannot be branded as conspiracy to kill the deceased. 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. In an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were 
relevant under section 439 read with section 437 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 continue to be relevant. While considering and deciding 
appeal against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a 
considerable time, the post bail conduct and supervening circumstances will 
have to be taken note of. The matters to be considered in an application for E 
bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe 
that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the 
charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger 
of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, 
means, position and standing of the accused; (iv) likelihood of the offence being F 
repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; 
and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While 
a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses 
may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that 
his mere presence at large would intimidate the

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