ROHIT BISHNOI versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

[2023] 10 S.C.R.

ROHIT BISHNOI

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023)

BJULY 24, 2023

[B.V. NAGARATHNA ANDPRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of SessionsCregarding bail – On facts, an honour killing matter, wherein victimin extra-marital-live in relationship with the sister-in-law of therespondents – Allegation that the respondents conspired to kill thevictim and later shot him dead – FIR lodged by the brother of thevictim against the respondents – Respondents charged u/s. 302 andD120B IPC and ss. 3 r/w ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Bailapplication – Grant of bail by the High Court, by casual andcryptic order – Justification of – Held: While liberty of an individualis an invaluable right, at the same time while considering bailapplication, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of theaccusations against an accused and the facts that have bearingEon the case – On facts, it cannot be said that the accusations againstthe respondents are prima-facie wholly false, frivolous or vexatiousin nature, so as to justify grant of bail – Prosecution has broughton record adequate material that would prima-facie point towardsthe guilt of the accused – High Court while passing the impugnedForders did not take into account even single material aspect ofthe case, instead, referred only to the testimony of one hostile witnessin the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grantbail, by passing cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogentreasoning – Thus, not fit case for the grant of bail to therespondents, given the seriousness of the allegations against themG– Impugned judgments passed by the High Court set aside – PenalCode, 1860 – ss. 120B and 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 3, 25 and27.

s 439 – Grant of bail – Factors to be considered – Discussed.HMaxims : “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” – Meaning of.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The primary considerations which must beplaced at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: theseriousness of the offence; the likelihood of the accused fleeingfrom justice; the impact of release of the accused on theprosecution witnesses; likelihood of the accused tampering withevidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be statedthat if Court takes into account such factors in deciding bailapplication, it could be concluded that the decision has resultedfrom judicious exercise of its discretion. An order granting bailin mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would sufferfrom the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. Anorder granting bail to an accused, if passed in casual and crypticmanner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail,is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising powerunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Latin maxim“cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is thesoul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases,so does the law itself. [Para 18-21][512-G-H; 513-B, D-E]

1.2 While liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, atthe same time while considering an application for bail, courtscannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations againstan accused and the facts that have bearing on the case,particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous orvexatious in nature but are supported by adequate materialbrought on record so as to enable Court to arrive at primafacie conclusion. While considering an application for grant ofbail, prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons andmust be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of thecase brought on record. Due consideration must be given to factssuggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents ofthe accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would followa conviction vis aÌ vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.[Para 22][513-F-H]1.4 It is not necessary for Court to assign elaborate reasonsor engage in roving inquiry as to the merits of the prosecution’scase while granting bail, particularly, when the trial is at the initialstages and the allegations against the accused would not have

Abeen crystalised as such. Elaborate details cannot be recordedso as to give an impression that the case is one that would resultin conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing anOrder on an application for grant of bail. However, the Courtdeciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decisionfrom material aspects of the case such as the allegations madeBagainst the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegationsare proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in aconviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses beinginfluenced by the accused; tampering with the evidence; criminalantecedents of the accused; and prima-facie satisfaction of theCCourt in support of the charge against the accused. [Para 23][514-B-D]

1.5 In the instant case, it cannot be said that the accusationsagainst the respondents-accused are prima-facie wholly false,frivolous or vexatious in nature, so as to justify grant of bail. WhileDnot expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, that theprosecution has brought on record adequate material that wouldprima-facie point towards the guilt of the accused. Details as tothe manner in which the deceased, and N were traced by theaccused, the acts of reconnaissance that were carried out by theaccused before the alleged fateful incident and the manner inEwhich each of the accused participated in the alleged crime havebeen brought on record. Therefore, there is no inclination to holdat this juncture that the prosecution has not established prima-facie case as to the guilt of the accused. One of the prosecutionwitnesses, namely N turned hostile. Therefore, in the absence of

Fany evidence as to the circumstances under which she turnedhostile, it cannot be ruled out the possibility of the respondents-accused influencing other witnesses, tampering with the evidence,if they continue to remain on bail. The present case is not onewhere the accused have been detained in custody for an

inordinate amount of time as under-trials. The High Court in theGimpugned orders did not consider the said aspects of the case inthe context of the grant of bail. The High Court has been swayedby the fact that one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, N hasturned hostile which is not an aspect that must be taken intoaccount while considering an application for bail. [Para 24][515-HC-H; 516-A]

1.6 Court considering the grant of bail must not engagein an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, that theHigh Court while passing the impugned orders did not take intoaccount even single material aspect of the case. Instead, theHigh Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witnessin the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion togrant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court lost sight ofthe said vital aspects of the case and granted bail to therespondents-accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders,de hors cogent reasoning. [Para 25][516-B-C]

1.7 Having considered the facts of the instant case it is nota fit case for the grant of bail to the respondents-accused, giventhe seriousness of the allegations against them. The High Courtwas not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by therespondents-accused. Hence, the impugned judgments passedby the High Court are set aside. [Para 26][516-D-E]

Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497;Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC559; Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2SCR 371; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4SCC 280 : [2001] 2 SCR 684; Anil Kumar Yadav vs.State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11SCR 195; Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh(2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Prasanta KumarSarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010]12 SCR 1165; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana (Koli) (2021) 6 SCC 230; ManojKumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan 2022 SCCOnLine SC 30; Jaibunisha vs. Meharban (2022) 5 SCC465 – Referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2023] 10 S.C.R.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.2078 of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2022 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRMSBA No.16016 ofC2021.

With

Criminal Appeal Nos.2079-2080 of 2023.

Pradeep Chhindra, Rajan Chawla, Advs. for the Appellant.D

B. S. Rajesh Agrajit, Rajesh Chand, Ms. Jyoti Rana, Ms. PriyaNagar, Ms. Meetu Goswami, Siddharth Goswami, D. K. Devesh, AsadAlvi, Ms. Saba A. K. Patel, Hamid Irfan, Milind Kumar, Nishant Bishnoi,Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Tanay Hegde, Advs. for the Respondents.

EThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byNAGARATHNA, J.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.F3. These appeals have been preferred by the informant-appellantassailing the judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 16016 of 2021, 4265 of2022 and 4823 of 2022, whereby, bail has been granted to the respondents-accused herein, namely, Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam and Rajendra BishnoiGrespectively, in connection with First Information Report (“F.I.R.” forshort) No. 134 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mandore, DistrictJodhpur, Rajasthan for offences punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as“IPC” for the sake of brevity) and Section 3 read with Sections 25 andH27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant is the brother ofone of the deceased, namely, Vikash Panwar and is the informant wholodged F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 against four persons, including three ofthe respondents-accused herein.

4.1. F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 dated 18 May, 2020 is stated to havebeen filed by the appellant herein between 2.45 hours and 2.55 hours inthe night stating that his elder brother, Vikash Panwar, aged 25 years atthe time had been in an extra marital live-in-relationship with Nirma @Gudia, since three months, who was also married to Shrawan Jani andhad two children from the said marriage. That unhappy about the saidextra marital live-in-relationship, the parents and parents in-law of Nirmahad been threatening to kill appellant’s brother, Vikash Panwar.

4.2. That Budharam and Vikas Vishnoi, Nirma’s brothers, ShrawanJani, Nirma’s husband and Ram Kishor, Nirma’s brother-in-law werethreatening the informant’s brother by way of calls and WhatsAppmessages.

4.3. That on 17 May, 2020 at around 12.15 p.m., the informant’snephew informed him telephonically that video of his brother, Vikashgetting shot was being circulated on social media. The incident wasstated to have occurred at Nayapura Mandore area and on receivingthe said information, the informant and his father reached the said areaand found Vikash Panwar lying on the ground, dead, with blood oozingout from around his ribs.

4.4. That upon inquiry, the informant got to know that the fouraccused hereinabove named had come on two motorcycles and draggedVikash who was purchasing vegetables. Thereafter, they had shot athim, causing his death.

5. Earlier, on 18 February, 2020, Meera Devi had filed F.I.R. No.81 of 2020 in Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur stating therein that thedeceased-Vikash Panwar had kidnapped her daughter-in-law, Nirma.

6. On 24 February, 2020, Nirma filed F.I.R. No. 88 of 2020 againsther brother-in-law and parents-in-law for offences punishable underSections 498A and 376 of the IPC, stating therein that her brother-in-law repeatedly raped her and that she was being subjected to cruelty inher matrimonial household.

7. In connection with F.I.R. No. 134 of 2020, respondent-accused,Budharam was arrested on 22 May, 2020 while respondents-accused,

ARajendra Bishnoi and Vikas Vishnoi were arrested on 30 May, 2020 andremanded to judicial custody.

8. After conducting the investigation, the police filed chargesheetbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahanagar, Jodhpur, on 19 August,2022 against eight accused including the respondents-accused herein.BRespondent-accused, Budharam was charged for offences punishableunder Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 read with Sections25 and 27 of the Arms Act, while respondents-accused, Rajendra Bishnoiand Vikas Vishnoi were charged for offences under Sections 302 and120B of the IPC.C9. Respondent-accused, Vikas Vishnoi preferred an applicationseeking regular bail before the Court of the Additional District andSessions Judge, Mahanagar, Jodhpur. The same was dismissed by anOrder dated 10 November, 2021.

10. Application seeking regular bail filed by the respondent-accused,DVikas Vishnoi before the High Court, under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, was dismissed as withdrawn by an Orderdated 16 April, 2021.

11. Thereafter, respondent-accused, Vikas Vishnoi filed secondbail application, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos.E16016 of 2021, before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated14 February, 2022, the High Court granted him bail in connection withF.I.R. No. 134 of 2020 registered at Police Station Mandore, DistrictJodhpur, Rajasthan.

12. Subsequently, the High Court vide impugned judgment datedF02 February, 2023 allowed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Nos. 4265of 2022 and 4823 of 2022 and thereby granted bail to the respondents-accused herein, namely, Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi respectively.Being aggrieved, the appellant-informant has preferred these appealsbefore this Court.

13. We have heard Sri Pradeep Chhindra, learned counselGappearing for the appellant, Sri B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, learned counselappearing for the State alongwith Sri Asad Alvi, Sri Hamid Irfan and SriNishant Bishnoi and Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents-accused.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted thatthe impugned judgments have been passed without considering the factsas to the active involvement of the accused and the heinous nature ofthe crimes in which the accused have been involved. That the HighCourt has enlarged the respondents-accused on bail, contrary to thesettled principles of law and judgments of this Court.

14.1. It was further submitted that the High Court has not assignedthe reasons for grant of bail in the instant case whereas the respondents-accused have allegedly committed heinous crimes which could result inlife imprisonment or even death penalty. According to the learned counselfor the appellant, the High Court in very cryptic order, de hors anyreasoning, has granted bail to the respondents-accused.

14.2. It was contended that the High Court failed to consider theoverwhelming material that would point towards the guilt of the accused.Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostilewitness and on the basis thereof exercised its discretion to grant bail inan erroneous and perverse manner.

14.3. Sri Pradeep Chhindra next contended that while consideringan application for grant of bail, the Court’s exercise of discretion mustbe guided by reasons to be recorded in the Order granting bail. That theCourt must have due regard to the seriousness of the allegations and thenature of punishment that would follow conviction for the offences alleged.In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisionsof this Court in Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar- [(2022) 4 SCC497] and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh- [(2022) 8 SCC559].

15. Of the same tenor were the submissions of Sri B.S. RajeshAgrajit, learned counsel appearing for the State. It was submitted thatthe investigating officers had collected overwhelming evidence in theform of statements of eye-witnesses and other witnesses who identifiedthe accused in pictures and in the CCTV footage wherein they wereseen escaping the crime scene. That the police also recovered murderweapons, phones on which information was transmitted, reconnaissancewas done, call tower records, bikes on which the escape was plannedetc. That the chargesheet includes pictorial evidence of the respondents-accused escaping from the scene of the crime. That the High Courtoverlooked such clear and cogent evidence collected during the course

Aof investigation, which, in the very least would prima-facie point towardsthe guilt of the accused and erroneously proceeded to grant bail.

15.1. It was urged that discretion in matters concerning grant ofbail must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the particularcircumstances of each case. That decision as to whether or not toBgrant bail must be taken having due regard to factors such as the natureand gravity of the allegations, the strength of the evidence against theaccused, the potential severity of the punishment that would followconviction, the character of the accused, the likelihood of the accusedabsconding, the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses, thebroader public interest and other relevant factors. That where theCprosecution has been able to produce prima-facie evidence in support ofthe charge(s) against the accused, it would not be fit case for grant ofbail.

15.2. It was further submitted that the accused were not onlyinvolved in conspiracy to kill the deceased, Vikash Panwar, but alsoDactively participated in his murder. That having regard to the gravity ofthe offences alleged against the accused, the bail applications ought notto have been allowed.

With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the presentappeals be allowed, the impugned judgments be set aside and the bailEbonds of the respondents-accused be cancelled.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-accused,supported the impugned judgments and submitted that the same do notsuffer from such perversity as would justify interference by this Court.

16.1. It was further submitted that no matter how serious theFnature of the alleged offences may be, the accused shall be entitled tobe released on bail if the competent court is of the prima-facie viewthat the accused was/were not involved in the alleged crime.

16.2. That the conclusion of trial in connection with F.I.R. No.134 of 2020, would take considerable amount of time and it would beGagainst the interest of justice and the fundamental value of liberty tokeep the accused in custody for such an indefinite period. Therefore,the High Court was right in enlarging the accused on bail.

16.3. It was contended that there was no justifiable cause for theapprehension that the respondents-accused would influence theH

witnesses. That when the statement of prosecution witness, Nirma whoturned hostile, was recorded by the Trial Court, the respondents-accusedwere in judicial custody. Therefore, there is no way that they could haveinfluenced the said witness to turn hostile.

16.4. That the respondents-accused had no intention to misusethe liberty granted to them and this was evidenced by the fact that therehas been no allegation against them as to non-compliance or abuse ofconditions of bail.

16.5. Learned counsel for respondent-accused, Vikas Vishnoisubmitted that the only role ascribed to the said accused in the allegedcrime is that he was riding on motorcycle together with co-accusedat the time of incident. That no allegation has been made as to the saidaccused inflicting any injuries to the deceased.

16.6. As regards the allegations against respondent-accused,Rajendra Bishnoi to the effect that he hit the deceased on his head withthe butt of the pistol, it is submitted that the same were baseless andthere was no evidence to prove the same. So also, the allegations againstrespondent-accused, Budharam to the effect that he had fired bulletshots at the deceased.

With the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present appealsbe dismissed as being devoid of merit and the impugned judgments beaffirmed.

17. Having regard to the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant that the impugned judgments granting bail to the respondents-accused are bereft of any reasoning and they are cryptic and bail hasbeen granted in casual manner, we extract those portions of theimpugned judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023passed by the High Court which provides the “reasoning” of the Courtfor granting bail, as under :

Impugned judgment dated 14 February, 2022

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The prosecution witness Nirma @ Gudiya, in her policestatement, has identified the petitioner and other co-accusedpersons in the CCTV footage, but in her court statement, she hasnot supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. So far aswitness Rohit is concerned, I have gone through his police

Astatement and in those statement, he has simply stated that hewas informed that the incident is carried out by the petitioner andother co-accused persons. Having regard to the totality of thefacts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinionon the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail tothe petitioner(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this/theseBsecond bail application(s) filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is/areallowed and it is directed that petitioner(s) – Vikash Vishnoi S/oHanuman Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIRNo.134/2020 of Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur providedhe/she/they execute(s) personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/C- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to thesatisfaction of learned trial court for his/her/their appearance beforethat court on each and every date of hearing and whenever calledupon to do so till the completion of the trial.”

Impugned judgment dated 02 February, 2023

“Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstancesof the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, I deem it just and proper to grant bill to the accused petitionersunder Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 439ECr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Raju @Rajendra Bishnoi S/o of Pukhraj @ Papparam and BudharamS/o Kojaram shall be released on bail in connection with F.I.R.No.134/2020, registered at Police Station Mandore, DistrictJodhpur provided each of them executes personal bond in aFsum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties ofRs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for theirappearance before that court on each and every date of hearingand whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.”

18. This Court has, on several occasions discussed the factors toGbe considered by Court while deciding bail application. The primaryconsiderations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grantof bail are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of theaccused fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of release of the accusedon the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tamperingwith evidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if

Court takes into account such factors in deciding bail application, itcould be concluded that the decision has resulted from judicious exerciseof its discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh- [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ; Prahlad SinghBhati vs. NCT, Delhi– [(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs.State (NCT of Delhi) - [(2018) 12 SCC 129].

19. This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in amechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from thevice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal, videRam GovindUpadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh- [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; PrasantaKumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; RameshBhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)– [(2021)6 SCC 230] ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (supra).

20. Reference may also be made to recent decisions of this Courtin Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan– [2022 SCC OnLineSC 30] and Jaibunisha vs. Meharban– [(2022) 5 SCC 465], wherein,on engaging in an elaborate discussion of the case law cited supra andafter duly acknowledging that liberty of individual is an invaluable right,it has been held that an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in acasual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate thegrant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising powerunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

21. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex”meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of anyparticular law ceases, so does the law itself,” is also apposite.

22. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individualis an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an applicationfor bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusationsagainst an accused and the facts that have bearing on the case,particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatiousin nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record soas to enable Court to arrive at prima facie conclusion. Whileconsidering an application for grant of bail, prima-facie conclusionmust be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regardto the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration mustbe given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminalantecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that

Awould follow conviction vis -a -vis the offence/s alleged against anaccused.

23. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orderabove. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the onlyportions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High Court while grantingBbail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for aCourt to assign elaborate reasons or engage in roving inquiry as to themerits of the prosecution’s case while granting bail, particularly, whenthe trial is at the initial stages and the allegations against the accusedwould not have been crystalised as such. Elaborate details cannot berecorded so as to give an impression that the case is one that wouldCresult in conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing anOrder on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding abail application cannot completely divorce its decision from materialaspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused;severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable

Ddoubt and would result in conviction; reasonable apprehension of thewitnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering with the evidence;criminal antecedents of the accused; and prima-facie satisfaction ofthe Court in support of the charge against the accused.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we shall now consider thefacts of the present case. The allegations against respondents-accusedEas well as the contentions raised at the Bar have been narrated supra.On consideration of the same, the following aspects of the case wouldemerge:

a)The allegations against respondent-accused, Budharam isfor offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC andFSection 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act,while against respondents-accused, Rajendra Bishnoi andVikas Vishnoi the allegations are for offences under Sections302 and 120B of the IPC.

b)The allegation against the respondents-accused is not onlyGthat they were involved in conspiracy to kill the deceased,Vikash Panwar, but also that they actively participated inhis murder. The alleged incident is stated to be an instanceof honour killing.

c)A perusal of the chargesheet dated 19 August, 2022 wouldreveal that specific roles have been ascribed to each of theH

respondents-accused in the alleged incident. It is allegedthat respondent-accused Rajendra Bishnoi tugged at thecollar of the deceased from behind, so as to drag him downthe stairs on which he was standing, after which respondent-accused Vikas Vishnoi caught hold of the deceased, thereby,enabling co-accused Raju to hit him on his head with thebutt of country-made pistol. Having incapacitated thedeceased in the said manner, Budharam was able to firebullet shots on the chest and back of the deceased, resultingin his death.

d)In the present case, it cannot be said that the accusationsagainst the respondents-accused are prima-facie whollyfalse, frivolous or vexatious in nature, so as to justify grantof bail. We observe, while not expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, that the prosecution has brought onrecord adequate material that would prima-facie pointtowards the guilt of the accused. Details as to the mannerin which the deceased, Vikash Panwar and Nirma weretraced by the accused, the acts of reconnaissance that werecarried out by the accused before the alleged fateful incidentand the manner in which each of the accused participatedin the alleged crime have been brought on record. Therefore,we are not inclined to hold at this juncture that theprosecution has not established prima-facie case as tothe guilt of the accused.

e)One of the prosecution witnesses, namely Nirma, turnedhostile. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence as to thecircumstances under which she turned hostile, we cannotrule out the possibility of the respondents-accusedinfluencing other witnesses, tampering with the evidence,if they continue to remain on bail.

f)The present case is not one where the accused have beendetained in custody for an inordinate amount of time asunder-trials.

g)The High Court of Rajasthan, in the impugned orders dated09September, 2019 and 17 October, 2019 has not consideredthe aforestated aspects of the case in the context of the

516SUPREME COURT REPORTS

grant of bail. The High Court has been swayed by the factthat one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Nirma hasturned hostile which is not an aspect that must be takeninto account while considering an application for bail.

25. While we are conscious of the fact that Court consideringBthe grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the meritsof the case, we are of the view that the High Court while passing theimpugned orders has not taken into account even single material aspectof the case. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony ofone hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised itsdiscretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lostCsight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to therespondents-accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de horscogent reasoning.26. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case inlight of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is fit case forDthe grant of bail to the respondents-accused, given the seriousness ofthe allegations against them. We find that the High Court was not rightin allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents--accused.Hence, the impugned judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February,2023 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur are set aside.EThe appeals are allowed.

27. The respondents-accused are on bail. Their bail bonds standcancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned jailauthorities within period of two weeks from today.

FNidhi Jain(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.