Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Rajasthan Honour Killing Case: Judicial Scrutiny of Bail Decisions

The Supreme Court in Rohit Bishnoi vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. delivered a significant ruling regarding the grant of bail in a serious criminal case involving an alleged honor killing. The Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused, highlighting that the bail orders lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider crucial evidence.

Background of the Case

The case originated from the murder of Vikash Panwar, allegedly in an honor killing. The informant, Rohit Bishnoi, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR on May 18, 2020, at Mandore Police Station, Jodhpur. The FIR accused four individuals, including Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam, and Rajendra Bishnoi, of conspiring and executing the murder.

Sequence of Events Leading to the Crime

Vikash Panwar was in a live-in relationship with Nirma alias Gudia, a married woman with two children.
Nirma’s family, including her brothers Budharam and Vikas Vishnoi and husband Shrawan Jani, opposed the relationship and issued multiple threats to Vikash.
On May 17, 2020, a viral video circulated on social media showed Vikash being shot in public.
The assailants, riding two motorcycles, dragged Vikash from a marketplace and fired gunshots at him, leading to his death.

Earlier Criminal Proceedings

Prior to the murder, Meera Devi, Nirma’s mother-in-law, had filed FIR No. 81 of 2020, alleging that Vikash had kidnapped Nirma.
Nirma later filed FIR No. 88 of 2020, accusing her brother-in-law of rape and alleging harassment by her in-laws.
Following Vikash’s murder, the police arrested the accused and filed a charge sheet against them for offenses under Sections 302, 120B IPC and Sections 3, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

High Court’s Bail Orders

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Vikas Vishnoi on February 14, 2022, and to Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi on February 2, 2023.
The bail orders were brief and failed to justify the release of the accused in a case of such grave nature.

Arguments by the Appellant (Rohit Bishnoi)

The appellant’s counsel contended:

The High Court’s orders were cryptic, lacking reasoning and failing to consider the heinousness of the crime.
Granting bail in an honor killing case involving premeditated murder was against legal precedents.
There was strong evidence, including CCTV footage, phone records, and eye-witness testimony, establishing the accused’s role.
The accused posed a risk to witnesses and could tamper with evidence.

Arguments by the Respondents

The accused argued:

There was no direct evidence linking them to the murder.
The trial was likely to take time, and continued incarceration would violate their right to liberty.
Nirma had turned hostile as a witness, weakening the prosecution’s case.
The accused had complied with bail conditions and had no history of witness tampering.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, ruled in favor of the appellant.

1. Bail Orders Must Have Reasoning

“A court granting bail must provide reasons. The orders passed by the High Court lack substantive reasoning, making them unsustainable.”

2. The Seriousness of the Crime Matters

“The offense in question is an honor killing, which is one of the most heinous crimes. Courts must exercise extreme caution in granting bail in such cases.”

3. The Accused’s Prima Facie Guilt Was Established

“There is sufficient material on record, including forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts, to indicate the accused’s involvement.”

4. Risk to Witnesses

“The fact that Nirma turned hostile does not mean the other witnesses cannot be influenced. Keeping the accused in custody is necessary to ensure a fair trial.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders.
The bail bonds of the accused were canceled.
The accused were ordered to surrender within two weeks.

Implications of the Judgment

Reiterates the importance of detailed reasoning in bail orders.
Emphasizes that heinous crimes like honor killings require stricter scrutiny before granting bail.
Protects the integrity of witness testimony and prevents potential tampering.
Sets a precedent for handling bail applications in serious criminal cases.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to balance individual liberty with the need for justice in cases involving grave offenses.

Petitioner Name: Rohit Bishnoi.
Respondent Name: The State of Rajasthan & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Place Of Incident: Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 23-07-2023.

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

Download Judgment: rohit-bishnoi-vs-the-state-of-rajasth-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-07-2023.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 Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in Judgment by Prashant Kumar Mishra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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