2022 (9) TMI 1692 - HC - Indian Laws

Alleged conspiracy to eliminate deceased supported by threats, contemporaneous complaint, CDRs, arms recovery, and abduction allegations; bail refused

The dominant issue is whether a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy exists: the HC found material - prior complaints by the deceased about threats, ... Criminal conspiracy - prima facie case - Admissibility of electronic evidence - recovery of arms - call detail records - threats and apprehension - tampering with evidence - HELD THAT:- There is material to indicate that since a couple of years prior to the occurrence in question, the deceased perceived threat to life and made a grievance to the authorities about the same. This factor lends prima facie credence to the prosecution version that the alleged recovery of arms made the deceased even more apprehensive. The interval between the said letter dated 22nd October, 2020 and the date of occurrence assumes critical significance. Proximity of time is evident. It would be a matter for trial as to whether the contents of the letter dated 22nd October, 2020 can be construed as a statement made by the deceased as to the circumstances of the transaction which led his death. However, element of proximity is prima facie made out. Though it may not be justifiable to take into account the statements of witnesses recorded in C.R. registered with Lonavala Police Station in connection with the alleged abduction of Sagar Rathod, the fact remains that the Applicant Suraj Agarwal and the co-accused herein, have been accused of having abducted Sagar Rathod on the night intervening 22nd September, 2020 and 23rd September, 2022. In the totality of the circumstances, the element of criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased by hiring contract killers is prima facie made out. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased was done to death in a broad day light. There is material to show that the deceased apprehended such an untoward occurrence and named the persons who were allegedly after him and, eventually, the worst fears came true. From this standpoint, the apprehension on the part of the prosecution of tampering with evidence, in general, and harm to the prosecution witnesses, in particular, cannot be said to be unfounded. Bail Applications stand rejected. Issues: Whether bail should be granted to accused persons arraigned for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.Analysis: The Court examined the materials on record to determine if a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and involvement of the accused is made out. The analysis focused on the existence of inimical motives, contemporaneous communications, prior apprehensions expressed by the deceased, recovery of arms linked temporally to the occurrence, alleged arrangements with an intermediary (Sagar Rathod) as reflected in a social media transcript, call detail records evidencing multiple conversations among accused and co-accused, and other circumstantial evidence including witnesses and a memorandum by a co-accused. The Court applied established principles that conspiracies are often proved by inference from surrounding circumstances and that meticulous trial-level evaluation is not appropriate at the bail stage. The Court also considered the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with evidence and harm to witnesses in light of the gravity of the offence and the daylight killing.Conclusion: Bail is refused; the bail applications are rejected.