ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

694            SUPREME COURT
                         [2022]REPORTS
                                2 S.C.R. 694               [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A                         ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI
                                       v.
                   STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022)
B                             JANUARY 18, 2022
                [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 –
      ss. 302, 120B, 114 – Bail – Grant of, when not proper – FIR was
      lodged against unknown persons initially for offences punishable
C
      u/s.304A, IPC and ss.177, 184 & 134, Motor Vehicles Act
      considering the story narrated by respondent no.2 that his wife
      was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking
      together – However, later it was revealed that he hatched a criminal
      conspiracy along with co-accused persons to kill his wife and treat
D     the offence as an accident – Charged u/ss.302, 120(B), 114, IPC –
      Bail rejected by Sessions Court – Filed application before High
      Court u/s.439, allowed by Single Judge – On appeal, held: Merely
      because the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot
      be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the course of
      the investigation the evidence has been collected and prima facie
E
      the complete chain of events is established – While releasing
      respondent no.2 on bail, the Single Judge has not at all adverted to
      any of the evidence collected during the course of the investigation,
      which is a part of the charge-sheet – In view of the seriousness of
      the offence and the nature and gravity of the offence committed by
F     respondent no.2, the High Court ought not to have released him on
      bail – Impugned order unsustainable on law as well as on facts, set
      aside – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.177, 184, 134.
            Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered/relevant
      considerations – Discussed.
G           Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: The impugned order passed by the High Court
      directing to release respondent no.2 herein on bail is
      unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. Whatever reasons

H
                                      694
 ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                 695


are given by the High Court are not germane. The High Court           A
has not at all adverted to the relevant material/evidence collected
during the course of the investigation, which are the part of the
charge-sheet. During the course of the investigation and even as
per the charge-sheet it is alleged that for the monetary benefits,
respondent no.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-
                                                                      B
accused to kill his wife and tried to make out an accidental case.
During the course of the investigation, it has been revealed that
respondent no.2 took the accidental insurance policy jointly with
his wife on 29.09.2020 of Rs. 60 lakhs. The date of the offence is
26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. During the course of the investigation
and from the call details, it has been revealed that respondent       C
no.2 was in constant touch on phone with the other coaccused
from 4:22 a.m. to 6:25 a.m. on 26.12.2020. During the course of
the investigation and as per the charge-sheet, according to the
prosecution, as a part of the conspiracy, respondent no.2 took
his wife to Hanumanji Temple on foot and as he got the chance in
                                                                      D
the way, he made phone call to the co-accused to finalise the
plan. Co-accused made phone call to another co-accused (driver
of the Swift Car) and thereafter the said co-accused hit the
deceased by the said car and committed murder from the back
side so as to consider it as an accidental death. During all these
times, all the accused were in touch on phone calls. One another      E
reason given by the High Court to release respondent no.2 on
bail is that the accused has deep root in the society and no
apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with
the evidence/witnesses is expressed. In a case of committing
the offence under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and in a case
                                                                      F
of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the
seriousness of the offence, the aforesaid can hardly be a ground
to release the accused on bail. Therefore, looking to the
seriousness of the offence and looking to the nature and gravity
of the offence committed by respondent no.2, the High Court
ought not to have released respondent no.2 on bail. While             G
releasing respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all
considered the parameters to be considered while releasing the
accused on bail and that too in a serious offence of murder and
hatching conspiracy to kill his wife. The impugned order passed
                                                                      H
696            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     by the High Court is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 to
      surrender. [Paras 7, 9 and 10][700-G-H; 705-F-H; 706-A-D, F]
            Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
            Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 630;
            Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor,
B           High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 :
            [1978] 2 SCR 371; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi
            & Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 : [2001] 2 SCR 684; Ram
            Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC
            598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
            Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC
C           528 : 2004 (3) JT 442; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
            Chaterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165;
            Neeru Yadav v. State of UP & Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 422
            : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT
            of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR 195 –
D           relied on.
            Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021, decided on
            29.10.2021); Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,(2020) 2 SCC
            118: [2019] 14 SCR 529 – referred to.
E                           Case Law Reference
      [2019] 14 SCR 529               referred to            Para 3.3
      [1978] 2 SCR 371                relied on              Para 8(a)
      [2001] 2 SCR 684                relied on              Para 8(b)
F
      [2002] 2 SCR 526                relied on              Para 8(c)
      [2010] 12 SCR 1165              relied on              Para 8(e)
      [2015] 10 SCR 802               relied on              Para 8(f)
      [2017] 11 SCR 195               relied on              Para 8.1
G
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      No.70 of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2021 of the High Court
      of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Criminal Misc. Application No.9390 of
      2021.
H
 ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                            697


     Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Ms. Ranu Purohit, R.               A
Vishnu Kumar, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms.
Neelam Singh, Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Arvind Kumar, Prahlad Narayan Singh,
Sameer Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                                 B
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
30.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 9390 of 2021, by which the High Court              C
has directed to release respondent no.2 (accused) on bail in connection
with FIR registered at C.R. No. I – 11195008201056 of 2020 with Bhildi
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B),
114, 304A of the IPC and under Sections 177, 184 & 134 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the father of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.       D
       2. The incident in question took place on the morning of 26.12.2020
at 7:00 a.m. when respondent no.2 herein along with his wife, Daxaben
(deceased) left their home in Deesa to visit Hanumanji Temple at Gela
village and on their way at around 07:00 a.m. while they were walking,
the deceased was hit by a speeding four-wheeler (while coloured Swift            E
Desire) from behind and which immediately fled away. That one
Sevantibhai Ranchhodji Tank, cousin of respondent no.2 lodged the FIR
against unknown persons initially for the offences punishable under
Sections 304A IPC and Sections 177, 184 & 134 of the Motor Vehicles
Act on the basis of the story narrated by respondent no.2 that his wife
was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking together.          F

        2.1 That during the course of the investigation and considering
the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of the
investigation and making analysis of the call details between respondent
no.2 and his friend Kirtikumar Kanaji, it was revealed that respondent
no.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the other co-accused to            G
kill his wife by giving Rs. 2 lakhs to the driver of the Swift Car for hitting
the deceased from her back and planned to treat the offence as an
accident in collusion with each other. An application was made by the
Investigating Officer to add the offences punishable under Sections 302,
120(B) and 114 of the IPC. By order dated 6.2.2021, the learned                  H
698            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     Magistrate permitted the Investigating Officer to also add the aforesaid
      offences against the accused. Thereafter on conclusion of the detailed
      investigation and after recording the statements of as many as 40 persons/
      witnesses and having obtained the call details between respondent no.2
      and the co-accused, respondent no.2 and other co-accused have been
      charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 114
B
      of the IPC.
             2.2 That respondent no.2 filed a regular bail application before
      the learned Sessions Court. By a detailed order dated 19.05.2021, the
      learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar rejected the said bail
      application. That thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a Criminal
C
      Miscellaneous Application No. 9390 of 2021 before the High Court of
      Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail.
              By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge of
      the High Court has allowed the said application and has directed to release
      respondent no.2 on bail by observing in clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph
D
      4 as under and without adverting to the material collected during the
      course of the investigation and without considering the seriousness of
      the offence and the criminal conspiracy hatched by respondent no.2 to
      kill his wife for monetary benefits. The observations made in clauses
      (iv) and (v) of paragraph 4 read as under:
E
            “(iv) At the end of the submissions, it appears that the prosecution
            case rests on circumstantial evidence and therefore, it is not legal
            and proper to deny bail to the present applicant on such weak
            piece of evidence.

F           (v) The applicant has deep root in the society, no apprehension as
            to flee away or escape trial or tampering with the evidence/
            witnesses is expressed.”
            Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed
      by the learned Single Judge of the High Court directing to release
G     respondent no.2 on bail, the father of the deceased has preferred the
      present appeal.
             3. Shri Pradhuman Gohil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
      of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error
H     in releasing respondent no.2 on bail.
 ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                          699
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3.1 It is vehemently submitted that while releasing respondent          A
no.2 on bail, the High Court has not adverted to any of the material
collected during the course of the investigation which are the part of the
charge sheet and that the nature and gravity of the offence.
      3.2 It is submitted that the High Court, as such, has not assigned
any reasons except that it is a case of circumstantial evidence which          B
can be said to be a weak piece of evidence.
      3.3 It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the High
Court releasing respondent no.2 on bail is contrary to the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 630,              C
as well as the recent decision of this Court in the case of Bhoopendra
Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of
2021, decided on 29.10.2021) and decision of this Court in the case of
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118.
       3.4 It is submitted that in the present case during the course of the   D
investigation, it has been revealed that respondent no.2 was in financial
difficulty; he got insurance accidental policy in the joint names of himself
and his wife of Rs. 60 lakhs on 29.09.2020. It is submitted that thereafter
he (respondent no.2 herein) hatched the criminal conspiracy with the
other co-accused to kill her wife to get the monetary benefits and
ultimately killed his wife on 26.12.2020.                                      E

       3.5 It is submitted that during the course of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer has collected ample material to complete the chain
of events. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected the
call details between respondent no.2 and co-accused Kirtikumar Kanaji
and the co-accused driver of the Swift Car and it has been found that all      F
the three were in touch with each other and they talked between 4:22
a.m. to 6:25 a.m. on the date of the incident and thereafter the deceased
was hit by the co-accused Maheshbhai at 7:00 a.m. It is submitted that
therefore the High Court ought not to have release respondent no.2 on
bail.                                                                          G
        4. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State of Gujarat has supported the appellant. It is submitted that
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed by respondent
no.2, the High Court ought not to have released respondent no.2 on bail.
It is submitted that after a detailed investigation, respondent no.2 and the
                                                                               H
700             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     other co-accused have been charge-sheeted for the offences under
      Sections 302 and 120(B) IPC for having hatched the criminal conspiracy
      and killed the wife of respondent no.2 for monetary benefits.
             5. Ms. Neelam Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
      respondent no.2 while opposing the present appeal has submitted that as
B     investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and
      the custodial interrogation of respondent no.2 is not required and therefore
      the High Court has not committed any error in releasing respondent no.2
      on bail, more particularly when the prosecution case rests on
      circumstantial evidence.
C            6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      at length. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court releasing respondent no.2 on bail. Except making
      observations in clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph 4, reproduced
      hereinabove, no further reasons have been assigned by the High Court
      while releasing respondent no.2 on bail. Even the High Court has not at
D     all adverted to the material collected during the course of the investigation.
      The High Court has not at all considered the material/evidence collected
      during the course of the investigation even prima facie and has directed
      to release respondent no.2 in such a serious offence of hatching
      conspiracy to kill his wife, by simply observing that as it is a case of
E     circumstantial evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence, it is not
      legal and proper to deny bail to respondent no.2. Merely because the
      prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground to
      release the accused on bail, if during the course of the investigation the
      evidence/material has been collected and prima facie the complete chain
      of events is established. As observed hereinabove, while releasing
F     respondent no.2 on bail, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
      not at all adverted to and/or considered any of the material/evidence
      collected during the course of the investigation, which is a part of the
      charge-sheet.
             7. One another reason given by the High Court to release
G     respondent no.2 on bail is that the accused has deep root in the society
      and no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with
      the evidence/witnesses is expressed. In a case of committing the offence
      under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and in a case of hatching
      conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the seriousness of the offence,
H     the aforesaid can hardly be a ground to release the accused on bail.
 ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                            701
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      8. At this stage, few decisions of this Court on grant of bail are         A
required to be referred to.
      a)     In Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor,
             High Court of Andhra Pradesh — (1978) 1 SCC 240,
             Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article
             21 of the Constitution of India in the context of liberty of a      B
             person under trial, has laid down the key factors that have
             to be considered while granting bail, which are extracted
             as under:
                “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
                vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is              C
                pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
                liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears
                upon the issue.
                8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course
                of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the                D
                benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the
                time being.
                9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the
                Court considering the likelihood of the applicant
                interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or                E
                otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only
                traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the
                antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find
                whether he has a bad record – particularly a record
                which suggests that he is likely to commit serious
                offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part       F
                of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has
                enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict
                further about the criminal record of a defendant, is
                therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.”
      b)     In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS – (2001)              G
             4 SCC 280 this Court highlighted the aspects which are to
             be considered by a court while dealing with an application
             seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows:
                “The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
                basis of well settled principles having regard to the            H
702        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A               circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
                manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in
                mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence
                in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
                conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and
                standing of the accused, circumstances which are
B
                peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
                the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
                apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
                larger interests of the public or State and similar other
                considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
C               purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used
                the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of
                “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the
                grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
                genuine case against the accused and that the
                prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence
D               in support of the charge.”
      c)     This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan
             Singh – (2002) 3 SCC 598, speaking through Banerjee,
             J., emphasized that a court exercising discretion in matters
             of bail, has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting
E            that bail cannot be granted as a matter of course, bereft of
             cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows:
                “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order —
                but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a
                judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order
F               for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
                Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
                dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
                dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always
                vary from case to case. While placement of the accused
                in the society, though may be considered but that by
G               itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of
                bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled
                with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail.
                The nature of the offence is one of the basic
                considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is
H               the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the
ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                      703
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

           bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix         A
           of the matter.”
   d)   In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias
        Pappu Yadav & Anr. – (2004) 7 SCC 528, this Court
        held that although it is established that a court considering a
        bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of       B
        evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the
        case, the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
        justifying the grant of bail.
   e)   In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee — (2010)
        14 SCC 496 this Court observed that where a High Court            C
        has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer
        from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal.
        This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances
        under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In
        doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court’s
        decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under:          D
           “It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
           with an order passed by the High Court granting or
           rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
           incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
           judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the    E
           basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of
           this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
           other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
           while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether
           there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe       F
           that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature
           and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the
           punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
           accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)
           character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
           accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;        G
           (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
           influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
           thwarted by grant of bail.”
   f)   In eeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. – (2016) 15 SCC
        422, after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court       H
704             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A                  on the considerations to be placed at balance while deciding
                   to grant bail, it is observed in paragraphs 15 and 18 as under:
                       “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless
                       sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal
                       antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with
B                      the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter
                       involved in the nature of crimes which we have
                       reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that
                       he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of
                       heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of
                       imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do
C                      create a thunder and lightening having the effect
                       potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The
                       law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these
                       kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore,
                       the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and
D                      not in a whimsical manner.
                                                  xxx
                       18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with
                       profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as
                       the cancellation is not sought because of supervening
E                      circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by
                       the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have
                       not been taken into consideration which includes the
                       criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the
                       order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is
F                      the lancination of the impugned order.”
             8.1 In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2018) 12
      SCC 129, it is observed and held by this Court that while granting bail,
      the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence;
      (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to
G     the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv)
      the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its
      impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering.
             8.2 Emphasizing on giving brief reasons while granting bail, it is
      observed by this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra)
      that though it is a well settled principle that in determining as to whether
H
 ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER                           705
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions        A
Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would not launch
upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is
still to take place. It is further observed that however the Court granting
bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons,
brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant
                                                                                B
bail. It is observed that the outcome of the application has a significant
bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand as well as the public
interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other and the
rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well and therefore
while granting bail, the Court has to apply a judicial mind and record
brief reasons for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. It      C
is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph
36 as under:
      “36. Grant of bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
      Procedure is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion.
      Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case of any    D
      other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution-
      is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant
      safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to
      the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of
      reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process
                                                                                E
      underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective
      standards of reason and justice.”
       9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the present case, the impugned order passed by
the High Court directing to release respondent no.2 herein on bail is
                                                                                F
unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. Whatever reasons are
given by the High Court are not germane. As observed hereinabove, the
High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant material/evidence
collected during the course of the investigation, which are the part of the
charge-sheet. During the course of the investigation and even as per the
charge-sheet it is alleged that for the monetary benefits, respondent no.2      G
hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to kill his wife and
tried to make out an accidental case. During the course of the
investigation, it has been revealed that respondent no.2 took the accidental
insurance policy jointly with his wife on 29.09.2020 of Rs. 60 lakhs. The
date of the offence is 26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. During the course of the
                                                                                H
706              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     investigation and from the call details, it has been revealed that respondent
      no.2 was in constant touch on phone with the other co-accused from
      4:22 a.m. to 6:25 a.m. on 26.12.2020. During the course of the
      investigation and as per the charge-sheet, according to the prosecution,
      as a part of the conspiracy, respondent no.2 – Lalitbhai Ganpatji Tank
      took his wife to Hanumanji Temple on foot and as he got the chance in
B
      the way, he made phone call to the co-accused Kirtikumar Kanaji to
      finalise the plan. Kirtikumar Kanaji made phone call to another co-accused
      Mahesh (driver of the Swift Car) and thereafter the co-accused Mahesh
      hit the deceased Daxaben by the said car and committed murder from
      the back side so as to consider it as an accidental death. During all these
C     times, all the accused were in touch on phone calls. Therefore, looking
      to the seriousness of the offence and looking to the nature and gravity of
      the offence committed by respondent no.2, the High Court ought not to
      have released respondent no.2 on bail. While releasing respondent no.2
      on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the parameters to be
      considered while releasing the accused on bail and that too in a serious
D
      offence of murder and hatching conspiracy to kill his wife. The impugned
      order passed by the High Court releasing respondent no.2 cannot be
      sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
             10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
E     30.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
      Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9390/
      2021, releasing respondent no.2 herein on bail is hereby quashed and set
      aside. Since, we have quashed and set aside the impugned order releasing
      respondent no.2 herein on bail, respondent no.2 is directed to surrender
F     before the concerned Court/Jail authorities, within a period of one week
      from today. However, it is observed that the observations made in this
      judgment are for the purpose of deciding the question of bail only and
      the trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the case and decide the
      same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led by
      both sides.
G

      Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)



H