Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Child Kidnapping and Murder Case: Orders Expedited Trial

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mamta & Anr. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., delivered a significant judgment on May 24, 2022, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a gruesome child kidnapping and murder case. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had failed to consider crucial evidence and ordered the accused to surrender immediately, while also directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the tragic abduction and murder of a 13-year-old Class VIII student in Delhi. According to the prosecution, the child was kidnapped on November 18, 2014, for a ransom of Rs. 1 crore. The following day, his lifeless body was found dumped in a drain. The second respondent (accused) was arrested on November 25, 2014, and remained in custody for over six years until the Delhi High Court granted him bail on March 2, 2022.

The parents of the deceased (petitioners) moved the Supreme Court, challenging the bail order, arguing that the High Court had overlooked crucial evidence and the pending testimony of key witnesses.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners (Parents of the Deceased)

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, presented the following key arguments:

The High Court had erroneously assumed that a crucial prosecution witness, PW-3 (Urvashi), was an approver.
Important witnesses, including PW-15 (caretaker) and PW-16 (landlady), had not yet been examined.
Substantial evidence, including DNA findings, call records, and forensic reports, implicated the accused.
Releasing the accused on bail posed a serious risk of witness tampering.

Arguments Presented by the Accused

The defense, led by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, countered the arguments with the following points:

The accused had already spent more than six years in custody.
The prosecution had only examined 11 out of 55 witnesses, resulting in undue trial delays.
The accused had cooperated with the investigation and even provided his voice sample, unlike other co-accused who had refused.
PW-3, a key prosecution witness, had turned hostile.
The call records did not conclusively place the accused at the crime scene.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court took a firm stance on the matter, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the potential risk to justice if the accused remained out on bail. The Court observed:

“The release of the accused at this stage would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the petitioners and the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance.”

The Court further criticized the High Court’s reasoning, stating:

“The High Court has, while granting bail, failed to notice crucial aspects which have a bearing on whether or not a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC was established.”

Considering the pending testimony of several key witnesses and the nature of the allegations, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred in granting bail. The Court ordered:

The accused must surrender immediately.
The trial court must conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis and conclude the trial within one year.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Bail should not be granted if key witnesses have not yet been examined, especially in serious cases like murder and kidnapping for ransom.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of protecting witnesses and ensuring fair trial proceedings.
The ruling highlights the necessity of timely trials and judicial accountability in handling grave offenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mamta & Anr. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reaffirms the principle that bail should not be granted in cases where it could obstruct the administration of justice. By ordering an expedited trial and revoking the accused’s bail, the Court has reinforced the importance of witness protection and judicial diligence in serious criminal cases.

The judgment serves as a precedent for lower courts to exercise caution while granting bail in cases involving heinous crimes, ensuring that the interests of victims and their families are safeguarded.

Petitioner Name: Mamta & Anr..
Respondent Name: The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Bela M Trivedi.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 24-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mamta-&-anr.-vs-the-state-(nct-of-de-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category