2005 (9) TMI 698 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail in alleged conspiracy to murder and evidence tampering: bail orders set aside and surrender directed

The text addresses bail law in an alleged murder conspiracy where substantial materialDNA linking the accused to the deceased, witness statements alleging ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the High Court's decision to grant bail to Amarmani Tripathi and Madhumani Tripathi.2. Examination of evidence and material against the accused.3. Allegations of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses by the accused.4. Legal principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the High Court's Decision to Grant BailThe Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's orders granting bail to Amarmani and Madhumani Tripathi. The High Court granted bail to Amarmani on the grounds that the confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Chaturvedi was retracted and inadmissible, and there was insufficient evidence to establish Amarmani's involvement in the conspiracy to murder Madhumita Shukla. For Madhumani, the High Court considered her a secondary conspirator and noted her lack of criminal antecedents, concluding that the material against her was circumstantial.Issue 2: Examination of Evidence and Material Against the AccusedThe Supreme Court reviewed the prosecution's evidence, which included:- The illicit relationship between Amarmani and the deceased.- DNA test confirming Amarmani as the father of the fetus.- Statements from witnesses indicating threats and attempts to mislead the investigation by Amarmani.- Material showing Madhumani's involvement in hiring the killers and her absconding behavior.The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the substantial evidence indicating a conspiracy involving both accused.Issue 3: Allegations of Tampering with Evidence and Influencing WitnessesThe Supreme Court noted several instances where Amarmani attempted to interfere with the investigation:- Threats to the deceased's family to avoid implicating him or his wife.- Misleading the police by fabricating a marriage between Madhumita and another person.- Transferring police officers who did not comply with his demands.- Threats and coercion towards witnesses, including attempts to bribe and intimidate them after being granted bail.The Court found these actions demonstrated a clear intent to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, necessitating the cancellation of bail.Issue 4: Legal Principles Governing Grant and Cancellation of BailThe Supreme Court reiterated the principles for granting bail, emphasizing the need to consider the nature and gravity of the charge, the evidence against the accused, and the potential for tampering with witnesses. The Court cited several precedents, including *State of Rajasthan v. Balchand* and *Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi*, to highlight that bail should not be granted if there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused interfering with the judicial process.The Court criticized the High Court for ignoring the substantial evidence and the accused's conduct, which indicated a high likelihood of tampering with the investigation. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders granting bail were erroneous and set them aside.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail to Amarmani and Madhumani Tripathi. The Court directed the respondents to surrender immediately and emphasized the importance of considering all relevant material and potential for tampering with evidence when deciding on bail applications. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring fair trials and preventing interference in the judicial process.