The High Court merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her statement is of no consequence since the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before concluding. A three-judge bench comprising of The Chief Justice N V Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice Hrishikesh Roy adjudicating the matter of Mamta Nair v. State Of Rajasthan ( CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2021) dealt with the issue of whether to allow the bail granted by the High Court or not.
In the present case, the Appellant in pursuance of the order of bail passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench has preferred the present appeal. The Appellant is the sister of one of the Respondent and wife of the deceased. It was alleged that Respondent is the main conspirator of crime leading to the murder of the Appellant’s husband.
On 17.05.2017 an FIR was lodged in the Police Station Karni Vihar for the offense under Sections 302, 452, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the mother-in-law of the appellant. According to the complaint filed by the appellant, the deceased was killed by his family members as an honor killing since they did not agree to the marriage between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the High court’s decision of granting bail to the family members.
The contention of respondent No. 2 is that in an earlier instance this Court had canceled the bail and thereafter the statement of witnesses has been recorded. The counsel for respondent No. 2 referred to the evidence of the appellant herein and in that context sought for bail to release respondent No. 2. However, the High Court has not assigned any reason whatsoever except referring to the said contention. Be that as it may, as noted, an earlier order dated 03.11.2017 had been passed by the High Court enlarging respondent No. 2, MukeshChaudhary on bail. The motherinlaw of the appellant herein Smt. Rama Devi Nair had assailed the said order. This Court while taking note of the fact situation and before concluding that the bail is to be canceled has recorded as,” The reading of the FIR and the charge sheet shows that prima facie there is material against the respondent No. 2 and in view of that, we are of the opinion that for the time being, it is not proper to extend the liberty of bail to the respondent No. 2. In view of the pendency of the trial, we are not inclined to go into the details of the case”
The Appellant contended that it is not the evidence in its entirety and it is premature to conclude based on a stray sentence. Further, merely classifying the appellant as the principal star witness and referring to her statement is of no consequence since the entire evidence will have to be assessed by the Sessions Court before arconcludingThe court held that there is a prima facie material against the Respondents the mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the respondent and grant them bail.
