The state should have been very serious to maintain the rule of law, said the top court
The Supreme Court Monday said Gujarat “failed to protect” the rights of the victim in a criminal case, in which a man was brutally murdered, by not filing appeals against the high court orders granting bail to two accused.
The top court, which observed that it is the duty of the state and the director of prosecution to ensure that guilty are booked and punished, set aside the Gujarat High Court orders releasing the accused on bail.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said this was a fit case where the state ought to have preferred appeals challenging the high court orders.
“Before parting, we may observe that by not filing the appeals by the state against the impugned judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a serious matter, the state has failed to protect the rights of the victim,” the bench said in its judgement.
The top court delivered the verdict on appeals filed by the original complainant, who along with her aunt and husband had gone to collect scrap from an open space outside a factory when the incident took place, challenging the two orders passed by the high court in 2019.
It was alleged that the complainant's husband was beaten up by the accused and died.
In its verdict, the top court said the submissions advanced by the state's counsel that it takes time to take a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not is “not acceptable”.
“The State ought to have been very serious even to maintain the rule of law in a serious matter like this where a person was brutally murdered/killed while he was just collecting scrap outside the factory with his wife and aunt. It is the duty of the director of prosecution and the State to ensure that the guilty are booked and punished,” it said.
“We hope and trust that in future the state government/legal department of state government and the director of prosecution shall take prompt decision in matters such as this and challenge the order passed by the trial court and/or the high court as the case may be where it is found that the accused are released on bail in serious offences like the present,” the bench said.
The apex court said in criminal matters the party, who is treated as the aggrieved party, is the state which is the custodian of the social interest of community at large.
The bench said it is for the state to take all steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. It noted that there is a director of prosecution in the state and even he has “failed” to perform his duties in this case.
“The post of director of prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the director of prosecution to take prompt decision,” it said.
The apex court said given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the director of prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial.
“We hope and trust that our observations will reach the state government/legal department of the state of Gujarat and the director of prosecution of state of Gujarat,” it said.
The bench directed the apex court registry to send a copy of its order to the principal chief secretary and secretary of the home department and legal department of the state of Gujarat to take further corrective steps.
Dealing with the case, the bench observed that the high court had released the accused on bail in a “most perfunctory and casual manner” without considering the seriousness of the offences alleged. “We refrain from making further observations on merits as the trial is going on,” it said, adding that looking to the gravity of the alleged offences and considering the statements of eye witnesses and also that the entire incident was recorded in CCTV footage and mobile phone, the high court had committed a “grave error” in releasing the accused on bail.
The bench said arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused that there are no allegations of misuse of liberty and therefore the bail may not be cancelled, cannot be accepted.
“As per the settled preposition of law, cancellation of bail and quashing and setting aside the wrong order passed by the high court releasing the accused on bail stand on different footings,” it said.
The bench said once it is found that order passed by the high court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled.
“The impugned judgments and orders passed by the high court releasing the accused on bail in connection with...are hereby quashed and set aside,” it said.
The bench directed both the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority within a week from today, failing which non-bailable warrants be issued against them.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)