Holding

The High Court was not justified in granting bail without allowing the prosecution to lead evidence, and the bail order is set aside.

Summary

The respondent Ritesh was charged with murder and related offences, including criminal conspiracy, for allegedly killing his beloved Shubhangi, a Scheduled Caste member. The trial court denied bail, finding him complicit in the conspiracy. The High Court, on a revision petition under Section 439 of the CrPC, granted bail, holding that the allegation of conspiracy was not established and without allowing the prosecution to present evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying the prosecution a chance to lead evidence and that, once the final charge‑sheet is filed, bail should ordinarily be decided by the trial court unless exceptional circumstances exist. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s bail order was set aside, directing the trial court to consider the bail application afresh.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail under Section 439 CrPC without affording the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence on the alleged conspiracy.
Whether bail can be granted after the filing of the final charge‑sheet in the absence of exceptional grounds.
Whether circumstantial evidence alone suffices to establish a criminal conspiracy in the present facts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 34, s. 364, s. 397
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(i)(xi)

Subjects

bailcriminal conspiracycircumstantial evidenceSection 439 CrPCSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actrevision petitioncharge-sheet

Judgment

A THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V.

RITESH, S/O VASUDEO WANJARI

MARCH 15, 2001

B [KT THOMAS, AND RP. SETHI, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Proceduff, 1973-Section 439-Bail-Re.ipondent 'l\'
criminally conspi1~d and allegedly m111rle1ed his beloved-Trial Cou11 refused
to grunt bail as it.found his complicity in the conspiracy-High Cow1 granted
C bail 1vithou! giving the p1vsecution an uppo11unity to lead evidence-On
appeal Held, High Cow1 not justifie(I in finding at the initial stage that
allegation of conspiracy 1vas not <!stablished, parlicular/y 1vhen rhe respondent
had gone to the place r~f occurrence-Respondent should have got a verdict
o,{ his innocence or involvenzrnf in the o_f!Pnce f1vm the cou111vhen the final
charge-sheet H'OS filed as no exceplional g1nunds \Vere made ou1 to depa1t
D fmm the established pmcedure-01rler of High Corm set aside-Pnwl Code,
i860-Secticms302, 109, 364, 397, 20l 1wdwith34-ScheduledCastesand
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atmcities) Act-Section 3( I )(xi).

Respondent had alkgedly conspired along with some other persons
to murder his beloved, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The task of
E
murdering the decea,ed was accomplished after two unsuccessful attempl,.
Respondent filed a hail application after he was arrested for the offences
under Sections 302, 109, 364, 397, 201 read "ith Section 34 I.P.C. and
Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. Trial Court found his complicity in the criminal con-
F spiracy established and refused hail. High Court allowed the Revision
Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and granted bail finding that the allega-
tion of conspiracy was not established. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD : 1. Despite observing that the case was based on circumstan-
tial evidence, the High Court did not afford the prosecution an opportu-
nity to lead evidence for establishing the existence of conspiracy and
wrongly held that it was difficult to infer the existence of a conspiracy
particularly when the respondent had gone to the place of the occurrence.
H The factum that he went there was relied upon hy the prosecution as one of
438
STATE v. RITESH [SETHI, J.] 439
the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the A
crime particularly when it was alleged that from there he used to have
telephonic talks with the other accused persons about the alleged con-
spiracy. In the absence of "exact talks'', the High Court was not ju•1ified in
finding at the initial stage that the allegation of conspiracy was not estab-
lished. [440-G-H]
B
2. Once the final charge-sheet has been filed in the trial court, the
~ High Court, under the normal circumstances, should have permitted the
respondent to get a verdict of his innocence or involvement from that
Court. No exceptional ground was made out to depart from a usual estab-
lished procedure. [441-B] c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 297
of 2001.
-,.l
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2000 of the Bombay High
Court in Cr!. Application No. 926 of 2000. D
S.S. Shinde and S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant.

M.R. Daga, P.S. Sontakke and T.S. Arora for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
SETHI, J. Leave granted.

The respondent was an·ested in connection with Crime No.129/99
registered by the Police Station, Goregaon for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduied F
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has been granted bail pending trial
vide the order impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was no
material on record to establish the involvement of the respondent in the
commission of the crime and that the accused was not aware of the criminal
conspiracy, in execution of which, the deceased Shubhangi was killed. G
According to the prosecution, the respondent had a love affair with the
- .... ,
deceased Shubhangi. The deceased was insisting for marriage to which the
respondent and his mother were not agreeable as the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste and the respondent belonged to Teli community which is
considered as higher caste. The respondent is alleged to have hatched a H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A conspiracy to get rid of Shubhangi by eliminating her. In furtherance of the
conspiracy and to create evidence in his favour, the respondent went to
Barmnati on 25th November. 1999. On 11.12.1999 one Ms.Vanita contacted
the deceased; who was working at Nagpur, and took her to market on the
pretext of making preparations for marriage of the deceased with the respond-
ent. In the evening, the other accused, namely, Ashish, Dinesh and Ajay came
B
in a Marnti Car and picked up the deceased along with Ms. Vanita and took
her to Ramtek. A contract killer is alleged to have been hired by the accused
to murder the deceased. As the alleged contract killer did not reach on that
day, the. criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused could not be imple-
mented. Again on 13.12.1999 accused Ms.Vanita took the deceased on the
C pretext of solemnising her marriage with the respondent. To the misfortune
of the accused, the killing was not accomplished even on that day as their
car had met with an accident in which Ms.Vanita, accused had sustained some
injuri«S. The task of murdering the deceased was accomplished on 15.12.1999.
The deceased was inflicted injuries with knife and stone and was also
D strangulated. In order to conceal the identity of the victim, the accused
persons took away her purse, bag and other articles from the dead body and
later on burnt the same.

After his arrest the respondent filed an application for bail in the trial
court which was dismissed on 24.4.2000 on finding that his complicity in the
E criminal conspiracy was established. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial
court, the respondent filed a Revision Petition under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in the High Court which was allowed vide the
impugned order.

For releasing the respondent on bail, the High Court has ventured to
F refer to the merits of the case and pre-maturily held that there was no material
on record to show that the respondent was guilty of conspiracy, in execution
of which, Shubh"ngi, once his beloved, was murdered. Despite observing that
the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court did not afford
the prosecution an opportunity to lead evidence for estab1ishing the existence
of conspiracy and wrongly held that it was difficult to infer the existence of
G
a conspiracy particularly when the respondent had gone to Bararnati. The
facturn of the respondent going to Bararnati was relied upon by the prosecu-
tion as one of the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission
of the crime particularly when it was alleged that while at Bararnati he used
to have telephonic talks with .the other accused persons about the alleged
-
H conspiracy. In the absence of "exact talks", the High Court found that the
STATE v. RITESH [SETHI, J.] 441
allegation of conspiracy was not established. The Single Judge of lhe High A
" Court was not justified, at the initial stage, to observe:

" ... .it is difficult to say that after the conspiracy was batched lhe
applicant had been to Baramati and from there he med to have talks
with other accused on phone regarding the alleged conspiracy."
B
Once lhe final charge-sheet has been filed in lhe trial court, lhe High
Court, under lhe nmmal circumstances, should have pcimitted the respondent
to get a verdict of his innocence or involvement from that Court under
Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No exceptional ground has
been made out, in lhe instant case, to depart from such a usual established
procedure. The order impugned being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.
c
Under lhe circumstances the appeal is allowed and lhe order impugned
is set aside. The respondent would be at liberty to urge grounds, if there is
any, for his discharge before the trial court and the trial court shall not be
influenced by any of lhe observations made by us in !his order while deciding D
his plea of bail. We make it clear that no observation made by the High Court
in the order impugned shal1 either be made a ground in favour of the accused
for deciding such a plea.

A.Q. Appeal allowed .

...