Bail Revoked in Murder Case: Supreme Court Cites Seriousness of Crime

The Supreme Court of India in Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ruled on the cancellation of bail granted to a murder accused by the Rajasthan High Court. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be granted casually when the crime involves a planned and premeditated killing. This decision reinforces the principle that bail must be denied in cases where the accused’s involvement is direct and the crime’s gravity is severe.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from the murder of Daansingh, the Sarpanch of a village in Rajasthan, who was set to testify in an ongoing trial related to an attempt on his life in 2015. Just two weeks before he was to appear in court, he was shot dead on September 11, 2017. His murder was allegedly orchestrated by family members of the accused in the earlier case, who had hired a sharp-shooter to eliminate him.

Following this, an FIR (No. 732 of 2017) was registered against multiple individuals, including the second respondent (a female accused), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302, and 336 of the IPC, along with Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act.

Grant of Bail by the Rajasthan High Court

The second respondent was arrested on October 3, 2017. She was denied bail four times by the Rajasthan High Court due to the serious allegations against her. However, on her fifth bail application, the High Court granted her bail on August 11, 2021, citing:

She had been in custody for three years and ten months.
She was a woman.
There was no direct overt act attributed to her.
A co-accused, Vijaypal, had already been granted bail.
There were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding her location during the crime.
The trial was taking a long time to conclude.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s (Bhoopendra Singh) Arguments:

The accused was in direct contact with the hired shooter and her co-accused son during the crime.
She was found to be in possession of multiple mobile numbers, which were used to track the victim’s movements.
She was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime.
She had been uncooperative during the investigation.
The trial was still ongoing, and granting bail could endanger witnesses.

Respondent’s Arguments:

She was a 60-year-old woman and had already been in custody for a long time.
The crime took place outside the victim’s home, where she had no direct role.
The prosecution exaggerated her involvement.
She was in touch with her co-accused son, but there was no proof of criminal conspiracy.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and revoked her bail. The Court made the following critical observations:

On the Seriousness of the Crime:

The murder was a pre-planned act aimed at preventing the victim from testifying in an earlier case. The accused played a crucial role in aiding the hired shooter and tracking the victim’s movements.

On the High Court’s Error:

The High Court wrongly stated that the accused had no overt role, while the charge sheet clearly established her involvement.
The use of multiple SIM cards and her constant communication with the shooter suggested active participation.
Her possession of weapons at her rented premises further implicated her in the crime.

On Bail Principles:

The Court emphasized the need for caution in granting bail, especially in heinous crimes. Citing previous judgments, the Court reiterated:

Granting bail requires considering the nature of the offense, gravity of allegations, impact on witnesses, and public trust in the justice system.
A mere delay in trial or prolonged custody cannot justify bail in cases of serious criminal conspiracy.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that bail must not be granted in cases involving planned and premeditated murders where the accused’s involvement is evident. The judgment serves as a reminder that:

Judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised cautiously.
Bail cannot be granted merely on procedural grounds like long incarceration.
Serious crimes require a higher standard of scrutiny before granting bail.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of bail provisions in cases of grave offenses. By revoking the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has ensured that accused individuals involved in severe crimes remain in custody until justice is served.

Petitioner Name: Bhoopendra Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Rajasthan & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice B V Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 29-10-2021.

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

Download Judgment: bhoopendra-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-10-2021.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 Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 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