The Supreme Court in the case Mamta and Anr Vs the State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr observed in the present case where a 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweller in 2014 and whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014 was accused by a man in kidnapping and murdering.
The Court set aside the Delhi High Court order of granting bail to the accused.
The contentions made by High Court while granting bail:
the custody of the second respondent was not required for the purpose of investigation as the charge-sheet having been filed.
PW 3 is an approver and further who has not supported the case of the prosecution.
at this stage, there is 5 insufficient evidence to indicate the involvement of the second respondent and the case rests on circumstantial circumstance.
The Court observed that the High Court has failed to notice crucial aspects which have a bearing on whether or not a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC was established, while granting bail.
The Top Court observed Since the trial is presently underway, we are not entering upon a discussion of the material which has emerged during the course of the investigation, which for that matter under Section 173 of CrPC led to the filing of the final report of the material which has been emerged during the course of the trial.
Thereafter an important circumstance which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined as at this stage the release of the second respondent would run a grave risk and which may led to impeding a fair trial.
The contentions of the appellants and of the prosecution cannot be regarded as lacking in substance that the witnesses may be tampered with.
the crucial witnesses which remain to be examined and the role which has been attributed to the second respondent, the exercise of the discretion by the High Court in the present case is improper, the court noted while considering the gravity and nature of the offence.the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender forthwith and further the Court set aside the High Court order Since the trial is pending since 2014,
The direction was given by the court trial Judge to conduct the trial expeditiously on a day-to-day basis and within a period of one year it needs to be concluded.
The Court added that the High Court ignored relevant aspects while granting bail and omitted to note the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the accused as it was being observed by the Court that the trial is going on and important witnesses are yet to be examined.
A vacation bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the Justice Bela M Trivedi noted that the prosecution’s case is that he was abducted for a ransom of Rs one crore and the body of the child was recovered from a drain a day after the child was abducted.