KANWAR SINGH MEENAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

                    [2012] 10 S.C.R. 847


                 KANWAR SINGH MEENA                           A
                             v.
              STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 2012)
                    OCTOBER 16, 2012
                                                              B
 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439(2) -
 Cancellation of bail - Considerations for - Held: The primary
considerations are whether accused likely to tamper with C
evidence; whether bail was granted ignoring relevant
materials indicating prima facie case or whether bail was
granted on irrelevant materials - On facts, the bail order was
passed ignoring relevant evidence indicating prima facie case
against the accused and ignoring the fact that brother of the D
accused, an /PS officer was influencing the investigation - In
a gruesome crime, High court exercised its discretion to grant
bail in an arbitrary and casual manner - Bail order suffers
from serious infirmities and hence legally not tenable.
                                                               E
     A criminal case was registered against respondent
No. 2 accused and 5 others u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 364 and
302 IPC. High Court released respondent No. 2 - accused
on bail. The appellant-complainant filed this appeal
against the bail order.
                                                               F
     The complainant contended that the High Court
released the accused on bail ignoring the principles
which guide the courts in exercise of their discretion to
grant bail and also over-looked vital evidence collected
by the Investigating agency in the case and the fact that G
the brother of the accused was an IPS officer and was
influencing the investigation.
    Disposing of the appeal, the Court
                            847                               H
    848      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012J 10 S.C.R.

A      HELD: 1.1 Section 439 Cr.P.C. confers very wide
  powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions
  regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court
  and the Sessions Court are guided by the same
  considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity
B of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and
  status of the accused with reference to the victim and
  witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
  justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his
  tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course
c of justice and such other grounds are required to be
  taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its
  own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain
  grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be
  taken into account by the court. The court has to only
o opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the
  accused. The court must not undertake meticulous
  examination of the evidence collected by the police and
  comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence
  and premature comments are likely to deprive the
E accused of a fair trial. [Para 10] [856-E-H; 857-A]

       1.2 While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
  the primary considerations which weigh with the court
  are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the
  evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due
F course of justice or evade the due course of justice. The
  High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even
  in cases where the order granting bail suffers from
  serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the
  court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating
G prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into
  account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the
  question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court
  or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the
  bail. Such orders are against the well recognized
H principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 849
                 &ANR.
are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage    A
of justice and absence of supervening circumstances
such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the
evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the
court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the
Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders          B
particularly when they are passed releasing accused
involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result
in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse
impact on the society. Supreme Court is equally guided
by the above principles in the matter of grant or           c
cancellation of bail. [Para 10] (857-A-F]

      2. In the interest of justice, the impugned order
 granting bail to the accused deserves to be quashed. The
 order passed by the High Court releasing the accused
 involved in a heinous crime on bail, ignoring the relevant D
 material, is legally not tenable. It suffers from serious
 infirmities. The High Court has exercised its discretionary
 power in an arbitrary and casual manner. The statements
 of the two witnesses appear to be relevant as they prima
 facie indicate involvement of the accused in the crime in E
question. The High Court ought not to have ignored
those statements. The High Court has expressed no
opinion as to why it was releasing the accused on bail. It
was imperative for the High Court to do so. A diary entry
 indicates that brother of the accused tried to bring F
pressure on the investigating agency. In his affidavit filed
in this court, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police,
has confirmed that the accused had made an effort to
influence the investigation. The fact that brother of the
accused is an IPS officer is not noticed by the High Court. G
Even Assuming that the accused is not likely to flee from
justice or after release on bail he has not tried to tamper
with the evidence, a legally infirm and untenable order
passed in arbitrary exercise of discretion releasing the
accused involved in a gruesome crime on bail should not H
    850      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A   be allowed to stand. This order needs to be corrected
    because it will set a bad precedent. Besides, it will have
    adverse effect on the trial. [Paras 15 and 16) [868-D-H;
    861-A-D]

B       Gurcharan Singh and Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi
    Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118: 1978 (2) SCR 358 ;
    Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 (3)
    SCR 432; Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5
    SCC 66: 2008 (6) SCR 1134 - relied on.
c        Do/at Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1994
    (6) Suppl. SCR 69 - referred to.

                          Case Law Reference:
          1978 (2) SCR 358           Relied on            Para 7
D
          2001 (3) SCR 432           Relied on            Para 8
          1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 69 Referred to              Para 8
          2008 (6) SCR 1134          Relied on            Para 9
E       CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1662 of 2012.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2011 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.
F   Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7452 of 2011.
        Lekh Raj Rehalia (For Varinder Kumar Sharma) for the
    Appellant.
      U.U. Lalit, Ajay Vir Singh Jain, Atul Agarwal, Pravin
G Agarwal, Ajay Saroya, Munawwar Naseem, Sanchit Dhawan,
  Siddharth Arora, Nisha Mohan Das for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
H granted.
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 851
     & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

     2. The appellant is the brother of one Purna Singh Meena.          A
On 20/5/2009, he lodged a complaint in respect of murder of
Puma Singh Meena ("the deceased") against Khushi Ram
Meena, who is respondent 2 herein and five others at Gandhi
Nagar Police Station, District Jaipur City (East), which was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 of the             B
Indian Penal Code (for short, "the /PC"). By the impugned
order, the Rajasthan High Court released Khushi Ram Meena
("the accused') on bail. The appellant has challenged the said
order in this appeal.

     3. The grievance of the appellant as stated by his counsel
                                                                        c
Mr. Lekh Raj Rehalia is that the High Court committed a grave
error in releasing the accused on bail. According to him the
High Court ignored the well established principles which guide
the courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail. It is inter   D
a/ia contended that the High Court overlooked extremely vital
evidence collected by the investigating agency and, without
assigning any reasons, it released the accused on bail. The
High Court failed to notice that there is more than prima facie
case against the accused and that the brother of the accused
who is an IPS Officer is trying to exert pressure on the                E
investigating officers. It is submitted that the High Court's order
being perverse must be set aside and the accused must be
directed to be taken in custody.

    4. Mr. Ajay Vir Singh, learned counsel for respondent 1-            F
State supported the appellant. He relied on the affidavit of Mr.
Yogesh Dadhich, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Jaipur City (East), Jaipur in support of his submissions. He also
drew our attention to an extract from the relevant station diary
which indicates that the brother of the accused tried to                G
pressurize the investigating agency.

     5. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused submitted that though the High Court has not assigned
any reasons for releasing the accused on bail, it has made a
reference to various important features of the matter. The High         H
    852       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A Court has observed that the information was received by the
  police at 6.10 a.m. on 20/5/2009 on mobile; however, no FIR
  was registered immediately; that the FIR came to be filed at
  3.15 p.m. on 20/5/2009; that though the investigation was
  transferred to CID (CB) on 5/6/2009, the same officer continued
B the investigation and got the statements of witnesses recorded
  under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short,
  "the Code") on 10/6/2009; that when the matter was
  investigated by CID (CB), the factual report of investigation was
  submitted by Sandeep Singh and Rajesh Sharma which
c reveals that the accused was not involved in this case; that the
  location of the mobile of the accused as per the investigation
  was at Sikar and that the trial court had rejected the application
  filed by the investigating agency to declare the accused as
  absconder. The High Court also considered the fact that the
D other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the High Court.
  Counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed after
  taking all the above vital features into account and, therefore,
  it cannot be said that there is any non application of mind.
  Counsel submitted that each of the above circumstances is
  very relevant and makes out a case of false implication of the
E accused. Counsel pointed out that there is nothing on record
  to indicate that after release on bail, the accused had tried to
  bring pressure on the police. The diary entry produced in this
  court pertains to an earlier period. Counsel submitted that the
  accused is on bail for a considerable period. There is nothing
F on record to show that he has tried to tamper with the evidence
  or he has obstructed the course of administration of justice. It
  would be, therefore, improper to cancel his bail.

          6. Cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once
G granted can be cancelled only in the circumstances and for the
    reasons which have been clearly stated by this court in a catena
    of judgments. It would be appropriate to refer to a few of them
    before dealing with the rival contentions.

          7. In Gurcharan Singh and others etc. v. State (Delhi
H
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 853
     & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

Administration) 1, the appellant Gurcharan, who was               A
 Superintendent of Police, was charged along with other police
 personnel under Section 120-8 read with Section 302 of the
 IPC. During the preliminary enquiry six alleged eye-witnesses,
who were police personnel, did not support the prosecution
case. However, after the FIR was lodged during the course of B
investigation, seven witnesses including the said six police
personnel gave statements implicating appellant Gurcharan
Singh. One eye-witness A.S.I. Gopal Das made a statement
under Section 164 of the Code in favour of the prosecution.
Learned Sessions Judge released appellant Gurcharan Singh C
on bail after observing that there was little to gain by him by
tampering with the witnesses who had, themselves, already
tampered with their evidence by making contradictory
statements. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that after
reviewing the entire material he was of the opinion that there D
was little probability of appellant Gurcharan Singh fleeing from
justice or tampering with the witnesses. He noted that having
regard to the character of evidence he was inclined to grant
bail. The prosecution moved the High Court under Section 439
(2) of the Code for cancellation of the said order. The High E
Court inter a/ia observed that considering the nature of the
offence and the character of the evidence, the reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and all other
relevant factors, it had no option but to cancel the bail. The High
Court observed that learned Sessions Judge did not exercise
his judicial discretion on relevant well-recognized principles. An F
appeal was carried from the said order to this court. This court
observed that the powers of the High Court and the Sessions
Court under Section 439 (1) of the Code are much wider than
those conferred on a court other than the High Court and
Sessions Court in respect of bail. However, certain G
considerations which have to be taken into account are
common to all courts. This court noted that gravity of the
circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position

1.   (1978) 1 sec 11 s.                                           H
    854     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and
  the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
  of repeating the offence; of jeopardizing his own life being
  faced with a grim prospect of a possible conviction in the case;
  of tampering witnesses; the history of the case as well as its
B investigation and such other relevant grounds will have to be
  taken into account. To ascertain whether there is prima facie
  case against the accused, character of the evidence will have
  to be considered. While confirming the High Court's
  interference with the discretion exercised by the Sessions
c Court, this court expressed its displeasure about the
  unwarranted premature comments made by the Sessions Court
  on the merits of the case when at that stage it was only called
  upon to consider whether prima facie case was made out
  against the accused or not. This court particularly referred to
0 statement of ASI Gopal Das, recorded under Section 164 of
  the Code and observed that this witness had made no earlier
  contradictory statement and the taint of unreliability could not
  be attached to his statement at that stage as was done by the
  Sessions Court. This court found that the Sessions Court was
E not alive to legal position that there was no substantive
  evidence recorded against the accused until the eye-witnesses
  were examined in the trial. Serious note was taken of the fact
  that the Sessions Court had not focused its attention on relevant
  considerations. The approach of the Sessions Judge was
  viewed as suffering from serious infirmity and cancellation of
F bail was endorsed.

       8. In Puran v. Rambilas & Anr. 2, the appellant therein was
  charged under Sections 498-A and 304-8 of the IPC. The
  Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur released the appellant
G therein, on bail. The High Court cancelled the bail granted to
  the appellant. The said order was under challenge before this
  court. It was argued that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case
  at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted
  have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very
H 1. (2001) a sec 338.
     KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 855
         & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an A
order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. It was
argued that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of
 bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused B
 in any manner. Reliance was placed on Do/at Ram v. State of
Haryana 3 in support of this submission. This court observed that
in Do/at Ram, it was clarified that the above instances are
merely illustrative and not exhaustive and one such ground for
cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and          c
evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed
in a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. This
court observed that such an order would be against the
principles of law and, interest of justice would require that such
a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. This court
                                                                    0
found that inasmuch as the Sessions Court had ignored vital
materials while granting bail, the High Court had rightly
cancelled the bail. It was further observed that such orders
passed in heinous crimes would have serious impact on the
society and an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by E
the trial court has to be corrected.

     9. In Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat'· the appellant
therein - a police officer was involved in a case of fake
encounter. Learned Sessions Judge released him on bail. It
was evident from the bail order that learned Sessions Judge F
was influenced by the fact that the deceased was a dreaded
criminal, against whom as many as 25 FIRs were lodged. An
application for cancellation of bail was moved before the High
Court under Section 439(2) of the Code. The High Court
cancelled the bail holding that learned Sessions Judge had not G
kept in view the seriousness of the offence in which the high
ranking police officer was involved. It was observed that past
conduct or antecedents of the deceased could not have been
3.    (1995) 1 sec 349.
4.    c2ooa) s sec 66.                                            H
    856       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A a ground for grant of bail to the accused. This court while
  dealing with the challenge to the said order held that though it
  is true that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail
  are different, if the trial court while granting bail acts on irrelevant
  materials, bail can be cancelled. It was observed that perversity
B of a bail order can flow from the fact that irrelevant materials
  have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the
  order granting bail. On the facts of the case, this court held that
  that the deceased had a shady reputation and criminal
  antecedents, was certainly not a factor which should have been
c taken into consideration while granting bail to the accused. It
  was the nature of the act committed by the accused which ought
  to have been taken into consideration. The order of the High
  Court was confirmed on the ground that the bail was granted
  on untenable grounds. The argument that supervening
  circumstances such as attempt to tamper with the evidence and
0
  interference with the investigation were absent and, therefore,
  bail could not have been cancelled by reappreciating evidence,
  was rejected by this court.

          10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide
E   powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding
    bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions
    Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts.
    That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the
    evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to
F   the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing
    from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his
    tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of
    justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into
    consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar
G   factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a
    particular case may have to be taken into account by the court.
    The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie
    case against the acoused. The court must not undertake
    meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police
H   and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 857
     & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
 premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair       A
trial. While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code,
 the primary considerations which weigh with the court are
 whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or
 interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice
 or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High   B
 Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases
where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities
resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail
ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement
of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which       c
has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused,
the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in
cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized
principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are
legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice
                                                                      0
and absence of supervening circumstances such as the
propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee
from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the
bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel
such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing
accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately            E
result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse
impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers
of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the
above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail.
                                                                      F
     11. It is necessary now to briefly note the facts of the case.
The complaint lodged by the appellant stated that on 19/5/2009,
the deceased came to his house at about 7.00 p.m. After the
deceased received a phone call, he told the appellant that he
had to take money from someone and asked him to drop him              G
by his bike at Gandhi Nagar. Accordingly, he dropped the
deceased near Janta Store, Opp. Shyam Hawans Paradise
Apartment, Gandhi Nagar at 12.00 in the night. The deceased
told him that he will come back next morning. Since the
deceased did not return as promised, the appellant reached            H
    858      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   Padawa near Shyam Hawans Paradise Apartment at about
    11.00 a.m. and inquired about the deceased. Chowkidar Kuldip
    Prajapati told him that the deceased was with Rita madam in
    Flat No.603 and in the morning at about 6.00 a.m., the accused,
    who used to meet Rita madam came with his four/five men in
B   a jeep bearing Registration No.RJ-14-UB-294. All of them went
    into Flat no.603; beat up the deceased; dragged him out of the
    flat, dumped him in the jeep and left the place in the jeep. After
    that, he searched for the deceased. He ultimately went to the
    police station and gave the information to the police. Thereafter,
c   he went to the mortuary in SMS Hospital. At the mortuary he
    saw the dead body of the deceased and identified it. The
    appellant stated that he was sure that the deceased was
    murdered by the accused and his associates. On the basis of
    this FIR, investigation was started.
D      12. During investigation, on 10/6/2009, statements of
  Kuldip Prajapati, the Chowkidar of Shyam Hawans Paradise
  Apartment and Rita were recorded under Section 164 of the
  Code by Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.15, Jaipur City,
  Jaipur. Copies of these statements have been perused by us.
E Kuldip Prajapati inter alia stated in his statement that Rita
  came to reside in Flat No.603 situate in Shyam Hawans
  Paradise Apartment belonging to R.P. Singh on 7/5/2009. The
  accused was a usual visitor at the said flat. On 19/5/2009 at
  about 8.30 p.m., he received a phone call from the accused.
F The accused asked him whether Rita was in the flat to which
  he answered in the affirmative. He further stated that on 20/5/
  2009 at about 6.00 a.m., the accused came there in a jeep
  along with three to four men. He went to Rita's flat. After
  sometime, Rita came to him and told him that there was a
G dispute going on in her house. He went upstairs with Rita. He
  saw the accused along with three to four persons dragging a
  man. On his enquiry, the accused told him that a wicked man
  had entered his flat. The accused did not tell him where he was
  taking the man. He put the man inside the jeep and took him
H away.
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 859
     & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

       13. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 of the A
 Code, Rita, inter a/ia, stated that she was married to one
 Ramgopal Meena. Ramgopal Meena became insane and,
 therefore, she deserted him. She was staying with her parents.
 Since her elder brother was dealing in wine, the accused, an
 Excise Officer used to visit their house frequently. On his B
 request, she began residing with him. Later on, physical
 relations developed between both of them. The accused made
 arrangement for her in a rented house wherever he was posted.
 When she was residing in Deepak Colony, she came in contact
with the deceased, who was also residing in Deepak Colony.      c
 Intimate friendship developed between her and the deceased.
 Rita further stated that disputes arose between her and the
 accused. She stated that the accused knew that she was
staying with the deceased. In the absence of the deceased, the
accused came to her and threatened her. He told her not to o
reside with the deceased and vacate the house. He made her
vacate the house and put her up in a rented accommodation in
Gandhi Nagar. On 19/5/2009, the accused was continuously
making telephone calls to her. Last call was received at 11.30
p.m. He was threatening her and asking her as to why she was E
in touch with the deceased. The deceased came to her flat at
about 5.30 a.m. When they were taking tea at about 6.00 a.m.,
the accused came there. He was accompanied by Rai Singh
and two others. Those two other persons caught her. They
pushed her outside the flat. They closed the door. She went
downstairs to call the guard Kuldip Prajapati. She told him that F
some dispute was going on in her flat. When both of them were
going upstairs, she saw all the four persons dragging the
deceased down. She did not know where the deceased was
taken. She informed the brother of the deceased that the
accused had taken away the deceased. She concluded that the G
accused, Rai Singh, Vijay and Subhash jointly committed the
murder of the deceased.

     14. From the complaint and the aforementioned two
statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code, it prima    H
    860      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   facie appears that there was illicit relationship between the
    accused and Rita. However, Rita came in contact with the
    deceased and intimate relationship developed between the
    two, which was not liked by the accused. It appears to be the
    case of the investigating agency that, therefore, the accused
B   eliminated the deceased with the help of his companions.
         15. At this stage, we do not want to comment on the
    credibility or otherwise of the evidence collected by the
    prosecution. Whether the statements of Kuldip Prajapati and
    Rita would ultimately help the prosecution to establish its case
C   can be ascertained only when the trial is concluded. That is the
    function of the trial court. It would be inappropriate to discuss
    the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to
    influence the trial court. We, therefore, refrain from doing so.
    But, we must make it clear that the statements of Kuldip
D   Prajapati and Rita, recorded under Section 164 of the Code,
    appear to be relevant as they prima facie indicate involvement
    of the accused in the crime in question. The High Court ought
    not to have ignored those statements. It is true that the High
    Court has referred to certain features of the prosecution case,
E   but that reference is in the form of submissions made by counsel
    for the accused. The High Court has not discussed those
    features. It has expressed no opinion as to why it was releasing
    the accused on bail. It was imperative for the High Court to do
    so. We have been shown an extract from a relevant diary entry
F   which does indicate that brother of the accused tried to bring
    pressure on the investigating agency. In his affidavit filed in this
    court, Mr. Yogesh Dadhich, Additional Deputy Commissioner
    of Police, Jaipur City (East), has confirmed that the accused
    had made an effort to influence the investigation. The fact that
G   brother of the accused is an IPS officer is not denied by his
    counsel. This fact is not noticed by the High Court. If it was not
    brought to the notice of the High Court by the investigating
    agency, then, it will have to be said that the investigating
    agency adopted a very casual approach before the High Court.
H   In any case, the order passed by the High Court releasing the
 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 861
     & ANR. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]
accused involved in a heinous crime on bail, ignoring the A
relevant material, is legally not tenable. It suffers from serious
infirmities. The High Court has exercised its discretionary power
in an arbitrary and casual manner. We have also noticed that
the incident took place on 19/5/2009 and the accused could be
arrested only on 1/6/2011. His two attempts to get anticipatory B
bail, one from the Sessions Court and the other from the High
Court, did not succeed. Assuming that the accused is not likely
to flee from justice or after release on bail he has not tried to
tamper with the evidence, that is no reason why a legally infirm
and untenable order passed in arbitrary exercise of discretion c
releasing the accused involved in a gruesome crime on bail
should be allowed to stand. This order needs to be corrected
because it will set a bad precedent. Besides, it will have adverse
effect on the trial.
      16. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the D
opinion that in the interest of justice, the impugned order
granting bail to the accused deserves to be quashed and a
direction needs to be given to the police to take the accused
in custody. We enquired with learned counsel for respondent
1-State of Rajasthan as to what is the stage of the case. We E
were shocked to know that till date, even the charges are not
framed. We feel that the matter brooks no further delay. A
direction needs to be given to the trail court to frame the charges
and conclude the trial at the earliest. In the circumstances, the
impugned order dated 19/8/2012 granting bail to accused - F
Khushi Ram Meena is quashed. The police are directed to take
accused - Khushi Ram Meena in custody. The trial court is
directed to frame charges within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of this order. The trial court is further directed
to proceed with the case and conclude it at the earliest G
independently and in accordance with law without being
influenced by any observations made by us which may touch
merits of the case as they are merely prima facie observations.
     17. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
K.K.T.                                     Appeal disposed of.      H