2005 (9) TMI 659 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Revokes Bail, Cites Key Evidence and Investigation Interference; Orders Immediate Surrender to Protect Fair Trial.

State through C.B.I Versus Amaramani Tripathi and Madhumani Tripathi

The SC overturned the HC's decision to grant bail to both accused, citing inadequate consideration of substantial evidence indicating their involvement in ... Challenged the Order passed by High Court in granting bail - Blind Murder - Conspiracy - seriousness and gravity of the crime - No Prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence - HELD THAT:- In the present case, we find that the High Court has granted bail being of the opinion that the extra judicial confession given by Rohit Chaturvedi one of the co-accused may not stand the test of scrutiny by a judicial mind but that by itself was not sufficient to grant the bail. There is voluminous evidence collected by the CBI to show the involvement of Amarmani Tripathi, and his effort to interfere with the investigation of the case before the grant of bail and also after the grant of bail. He tried to change the course of investigation by creating false evidence of the marriage of Madhumita with Anuj Mishra with the help of Yagya Narain Dixit, a police officer, the 6th accused who died in an accident during the course of investigation. There are written complaints with the investigating agency showing that after his release on bail Amarmani Tripathi tried to threaten as well as win over Nidhi Shukla, sister of the deceased, and her mother by offering bribe. In our opinion, the High Court gravely erred in granting bail to Amarmani Tripathi in such circumstances. The High Court practically failed to consider/take into consideration the voluminous evidence which had been collected by the investigation agency and have been referred to by them in their statement of objections to the application for grant of bail. It is true that the position of Madhumani is somewhat different from the case of her husband. While her husband is a politician and ex-Minister, she is no doubt a house wife. While her husband has several criminal cases against him, she has no such record. While there is material to show attempts by her husband to tamper with the evidence and threaten witnesses, there is nothing to show that she made any attempt to tamper with the evidence. But there is material to show that she had absconded for several months and surrendered only when bail was refused to her husband on the ground that she was absconding. Further when the matter is considered in entirety, with reference to the murder of Madhumita and the propensity of the husband and wife to pressurize and persuade others to act according to their wishes there is reasonable ground for apprehension that if her husband alone is taken into custody, leaving her to remain outside, she may take over the task of tampering the evidence and manipulating/threatening witnesses. Therefore, interference is called for even in regard to the bail granted to Madhumani. We are conscious of the fact that evidence in this case has yet not been led in the Court. Wherever we have referred to the word 'evidence' in this order the same may be read as material collected by the prosecution. Reference to the material collected and the findings recorded herein are for the purposes of these appeals only. This may not be taken as an expression of opinion. The Court would be at liberty to decide the matter in the light of evidence which shall come on record after it is led de hors any finding recorded in this order. Thus, the orders dated 29th April, 2004 and 8th July, 2004 passed by the High Court are set aside. The bail bonds of the respondents in each of these cases are cancelled. Respondents are directed to surrender forthwith and in case they fail to do so, the State should take effective steps to take the respondents in custody. Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail to Amarmani Tripathi.2. Grant of bail to Madhumani Tripathi.3. Interference with investigation and tampering with evidence by the accused.4. Legal principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Bail to Amarmani Tripathi:The High Court granted bail to Amarmani Tripathi on the grounds that the main evidence against him was the retracted confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Chaturvedi, which was deemed inadmissible. The High Court found no direct evidence linking Amarmani to the conspiracy to murder Madhumita Shukla, apart from circumstantial evidence like the illicit relationship and DNA test results. The High Court also noted that Amarmani had no criminal history that could justify denying bail and concluded that there was no risk of him fleeing or tampering with witnesses.2. Grant of Bail to Madhumani Tripathi:The High Court granted bail to Madhumani Tripathi, considering her a secondary conspirator and noting that her husband, the main accused, had already been granted bail. The court highlighted her lack of criminal antecedents and the absence of direct evidence linking her to the conspiracy. The High Court found that the confessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi was the only evidence against her, which was insufficient for denying bail.3. Interference with Investigation and Tampering with Evidence:The Supreme Court found substantial evidence that Amarmani Tripathi interfered with the investigation, attempted to mislead the police, and threatened witnesses. Statements from various individuals, including police officers and journalists, indicated that Amarmani tried to create false evidence, such as fabricating a marriage between Madhumita and another individual, and attempted to prevent the preservation of crucial evidence like the foetus. The Supreme Court noted that Amarmani's influence led to the transfer of police officers who were diligently investigating the case.4. Legal Principles Governing the Grant and Cancellation of Bail:The Supreme Court reiterated that bail should be granted judiciously, considering factors like the nature and gravity of the offense, the risk of the accused fleeing, and the potential for tampering with evidence. The court emphasized that while detailed examination of evidence is not required at the bail stage, a prima facie case must be established. The court also highlighted that interference with the investigation and threats to witnesses are significant factors warranting the denial or cancellation of bail.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in granting bail to both Amarmani and Madhumani Tripathi by not adequately considering the substantial evidence of their involvement in the conspiracy and their attempts to interfere with the investigation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail and directed the respondents to surrender immediately, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure a fair trial.