Supreme Court sets aside order granting bail to 60-year-old woman accused of murdering village sarpanch

The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted by Rajasthan High Court to a 60-year-old woman accused of murdering a village sarpanch (Bhoopendranath Singh v State of Rajasthan)..The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna opined that the High Court failed to take into account the relevant circumstance, gravity and seriousness of the crime and the role attributed to respondent-accused.“The High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent. The High Court has proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act has been assigned to the second respondent. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail,” the apex court stated..The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by the son of the deceased, Daansingh who was shot dead on September 11, 2017.A case for murder and other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC_ and Arms Act were registered against the respondent and other accused..The prosecution case was that the mobile phones and sim cards recovered from the accused-respondent showed that she was constantly in touch with the co-accused in the case. Further, a day prior to the incident, the respondent and one Bhuria had come to the office of Assistant Superintendent of Police and threatened to murder Daansingh. It is also the prosecution argument that the respondent had informed the shooter about movement of the deceased.The respondent’s bail plea was rejected by the High Court four times but she was successful in her fifth attempt..The High Court allowed the fifth application for bail observing that the respondent is a woman, she has been in custody for three years and ten months, no overt act was assigned to her, co-accused Vijaypal was granted bail and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time..Advocate Namit Saxena, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that no overt act was attributed to the second respondent since the charge-sheet, which has been submitted after investigation, indicated that she was using as many as four sim cards and was in constant contact with Prahlad, the co-accused who was hired as a sharp shooter, and her son Anek, who is also a co-accused. It was further contended that the respondent was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime.As regards co-accused Vijaypal being granted bail, it was pointed out that since he has not been charge-sheeted, no parity could be claimed.It was also highlighted that the High Court had in its order dated September 8, 2020 specifically noted that the respondent was not co-operating in the investigation.Moreover, four earlier bail applications have been rejected and there was no change in the circumstances to warrant the grant of bail, it was contended.The State of Rajasthan also supported the stance of the appellant and opposed grant of bail..Senior Counsel Vivek Sood, appearing on behalf of the second respondent, submitted that the incident took place outside the house of the deceased in which event, the role attributed to the respondent is rendered meaningless.Sood argued that there has been a clear over-implication of members of the family in the FIR since as many as six persons are alleged to have shot at the deceased whereas only two bullets were recovered.The second respondent is sixty years old and was released on bail after being in custody for three years and ten months. Further, only 28 out of 58 witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to take some time, he submitted..The top court after examining the contentions held that the observation by the High Court that no overt act has been assigned to the respondent, is erroneous..The Court said that the probe has revealed that the respondent was using as many as four sim cards and was in touch with one of the sharp-shooters who was hired to commit the crime.Further, as per the chargesheet, she was the custodian of the weapons which were stored at the rental premises where she resided.“Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased (Daansingh) to the killers. There has been an evident error on the part of the High Court in surmising that no specific or overt act is attributed to the respondent,” the Court said.Pertinently, the Court said that considerations which must weigh in the exercise of the power of the appellate court to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons stand on a distinct footing from an application for cancellation of bail.In view of the above, the Court set aside the bail granted to the accused by the High Court..[Read Judgment]