MUNILAKSHMIversusNARENDRA BABU & ANR.

                 [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1058 : 2023 INSC 943



                             CASE DETAILS

                             MUNILAKSHMI
                                       v.
                       NARENDRA BABU & ANR.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3297 of 2023)
                            OCTOBER 20, 2023
           [SURYA KANT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
                               HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: Bail granted to Respondent No.1 accused of
offences u/ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34, IPC, if to be cancelled,
in view of events subsequent to the grant of bail.
     Bail – Scope of interference – Respondent No.1 was specifically
named as the main conspirator in the murder of his wife – However,
change of stance by most vital witnesses, the family members of the
deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief – Allegations
made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of influencing the police,
hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the deceased and various attempts
to take away her life – Cancellation of bail:
      Held: This Court has a narrow scope of interference in an order
granting bail while exercising its power of judicial review and will be
invariably reluctant to interfere in such order even if it has a different
opinion – Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to
liberty embodied in Article 21 on one hand and the right of the orderly
society, on the other – The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration
is drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that
will ensure that a fair and free trial is not hampered – However, if it is found
that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by
influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee
from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing
the concession of bail – In the present case, the Appellant (mother of the
Deceased) was vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking cancellation of bail
given to Respondent No.1 – In her examination-in-chief, she specifically
                                     1058
        MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                              1059


named Respondent No.1 as the main conspirator in the murder of her
daughter – However, the sudden change of stance shown by the most vital
witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their
examination-in-chief cannot be a mere coincidence – Therefore, appellant’s
sudden somersault, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations
made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of influencing the police,
hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to
take away her life – Respondent No.1 has the potential to influence the
investigation or the witnesses – There is a prima facie proximity between
the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for
him to win over the witnesses – Impugned order set aside, bail granted
to Respondent No.1 cancelled – Further directions issued inter alia for
providing security to the appellant and her family till their fresh depositions
– Constitution of India – Articles 21, 142 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.109,
120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34. [Paras 19, 20, 25, 32]
     Bail – Misuse of concession of bail – Duty of Courts:
      Held: Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal
justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go
unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent
them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices
heard at every stage of the proceedings – Where, on consideration of the
facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfied that there are cogent
and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession of bail,
it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of justice to withdraw
such concession forthwith. [Paras 21, 22]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Recalling witnesses:
     Held: The unusual and surprising events that have happened post
the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling
the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial –
This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse
not only u/Article 142 but also u/s.311, CrPC, be it on the request of
the prosecution or suo moto – Such Constitutional or statutory power
is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other
proceeding – A person can be called and examined though not summoned
1060         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


as a witness, or can be recalled, or re-examined so as to throw light upon
the imputations – Constitution does not intend to fill the lacunae in the
prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an
accused – The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet
the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the
truth – In the present case, the family members of the Deceased are the
most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by
the prosecution – Their stand in the examination-in-chief is diametrically
opposite to the one in the cross-examination – Parents and sister of the
Deceased resiled from their earlier standpoint where they were agitating
vigorously before different forums since the year 2019 – Present is a case
fit for recalling the witnesses PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 (the mother, sister
and father of the Deceased) for their further cross-examination to reach
an effective decision in the subject trial – Constitution of India – Article
142. [Paras 28, 29]
     Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice –
Role of witnesses:
      Held: Witnesses play a very vital role in bringing justice home,
especially in the adversarial system of court trials where the onus lies on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by bringing persons acquainted
with the facts before the courts of justice – Their testimony determines
the fate of a trial before the court of law – If a witness turns hostile for
extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will
cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of
the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice
system will stand eroded and shattered. [Para 26]
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Exercise of power
under:
      Held: Power to recall witnesses u/s.311 ought to be exercised sparingly
and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to
infer misuse of concession of bail. [Para 31]
     Words and Phrases – “cogent and overwhelming circumstances
for cancellation of bail” – Discussed – Bail. [Para 23]
       MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                            1061



       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994]
6 Suppl. SCR 69; Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2021) 15
SCC 518; Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529 : [2016]
8 SCR 936 – relied on.
     Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013]
14 SCR 713; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1
SCC 40 : [2011] 13 SCR 309; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3297 of 2023.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2020 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No.3164 of 2020.
     Appearances:
     Mahesh Thakur, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi,
Shivamm Sharrma, Ms. Anusha R., Advs. for the Appellant.
    Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, V. N.
Raghupathy, Narendra Pal Gupta, Shubhranshu Padhi, Md. Apzal Ansari,
Advs. for the Respondents.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                              JUDGMENT
     SURYA KANT, J.
     1. Leave granted.
      2. This criminal appeal arises out of an order dated 12.08.2020 passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby Respondent No.1 was
granted regular bail in trial proceedings numbered S.C. 1111/2021, pending
before Ld. Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said trial
has emanated from Crime No. 151/2019 dated 21.12.2019 registered at
1062           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.


Police Station Vyalikaval, Bengaluru under Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302,
450, 454 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [Hereafter ‘IPC’].
       A. FACTS:
       A.1. FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE THE GRANT OF BAIL
     3. Marriage between Vinutha M. and Respondent No. 1 was
solemnised in the year 2006. A male child was born from the wedlock in the
year 2009. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was having an extra-marital
affair. He and his family members allegedly started harassing Vinutha M.
soon after the birth of their child and pressurised her to sign the divorce
papers. She, therefore, started living separately on the first floor of the
matrimonial home.
      4. Vinutha M. filed multiple criminal complaints of harassment
including alleged attempts made on her life against Respondent No. 1 and
his family members, leading to registration of several First Information
Reports [Hereafter ‘FIR’], the brief details of which are as follows:
       I.    FIR No. 231/2015 was lodged under Section 498A of IPC at P.S.
             Vyalikaval, Bengaluru on 23.11.2015 alleging that Respondent
             No. 1 along with his family members assaulted and threatened the
             complainant to sign divorce papers. On her refusal, the mother
             of Respondent No. 1 tried to kill the Complainant by pouring
             kerosene oil on her but she managed to escape.
       II.   FIR No. 238/2015 was registered under Sections 354(A)(2),
             506, 504, 341, 448, 109 read with 34 of IPC at P.S. Vyalikaval,
             Bengaluru alleging that the driver of the uncle of Respondent
             No. 1 entered the Complainant’s room and tried to commit rape
             upon her at the instigation of the father of Respondent No. 1.
       III. FIR No. 97/2016 was registered under Sections 143, 323, 448,
            504, 506, and 149 of IPC at P.S. Vyalikaval, Bengaluru alleging
            that Respondent No. 1 tried to kill the Complainant with an axe
            but she managed to escape to the toilet and saved herself. She
            called the police from inside the toilet and on hearing the sound
            of the police siren, Respondent No. 1 and his family members
            ran away.
          MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                             1063
                   [SURYA KANT, J.]

     IV. FIR No. 205/2017 was registered under Section 25(1)(B)(B) of
         the Arms Act of 1959 and Sections 96 and 97 of the Karnataka
         Police Act of 1963 [Hereafter ‘KP Act’] at P.S. Vyalikaval,
         Bengaluru, alleging that Respondent No. 1 sent some rowdies to
         kill the Complainant. The Police later caught those goons along
         with axes and chilli powder, which they carried along to assault
         the Complainant.
     V.     FIR No. 50/2019 was registered under Sections 354(B), 341, 323,
            427, 504, and 506 of IPC at P.S. Vyalikaval, Bengaluru alleging
            that Respondent No. 1 along with his childhood friends physically
            and sexually assaulted the Complainant on 16.06.2019 and also
            damaged her two-wheeler.
      5. It is pertinent to note here that due to alleged continuous attacks and
threats to her life, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Police Commissioner
requesting for police protection and sought legal action against Respondent
No. 1 and his family members.
     6. Having received no response from the police officials, she
approached the High Court through W.P. No. 33221/2019, seeking protection
from Respondent No.1 and his family. The writ petition was disposed of
by the High Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 (after noticing the law laid
down by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Ors.1),
with a direction to the competent authority to take necessary action on the
complaint, if not taken already, within a period of three weeks.
      7. Thereafter, the Complainant brought the order of the High Court to
the notice of the jurisdictional Police Station on 19.08.2019 and requested
to provide adequate police protection to her.
     8. Apparently, no heed was paid to her request for police protection,
hence the Complainant made another complaint to the police station,
Bengaluru on 21.10.2019, alleging specifically that Respondent No. 1 had
paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to one Chinnaswamy and his associates for her
Contract-Killing. It appears that the above-named Chinnaswamy and his
associates were caught red-handed on 29.11.2017 by the local police in


1   (2014) 2 SCC 1
1064          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


connection with FIR 205/2017. They were subsequently released on bail,
which posed an imminent threat to the Complainant’s life at the hands of
Respondent No. 1, and his associates like Chinnaswamy who had criminal
antecedents.
      9. The Complainant left no stone unturned and made yet another
elaborate complaint reiterating the abovementioned allegations to the
Chief Minister of Karnataka on 30.10.2019. Additionally, a women’s
organisation also came forward and made a complaint alleging collusion
of the police officials of Vyalikaval Police Station with Respondent No.
1 stating expressly that the local police was ‘inactive’ for extraneous
considerations.
     10. It is also discernible from the contents of all the complaints that the
son born from wedlock continued in the sole custody of the Complainant
while Respondent No. 1 unabatedly kept on harassing the Complainant and
pressurising her to agree to a mutual divorce.
      11. On the ill-fated day, i.e., 21.12.2019, the Complainant [Hereafter
‘Deceased’] was found dead in her apartment. She was found lying in a pool
of blood and in a supine position. The Appellant – Smt. Munilakshmi, the
Deceased’s mother, lodged the subject FIR, which was initially registered
only under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The FIR stated that Respondent
No. 1 was coercing the Deceased to consent to divorce as he wanted to
marry someone else. It further alleged that Respondent No.1, his family
members, and his associates had also previously attempted to kill the
Appellant’s daughter.
     12. Being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of offence under Section
302 of IPC in the subject FIR, the Appellant thereafter made another
complaint on 25.12.2019, alleging that suspects wearing helmets, etc.,
used to regularly visit the matrimonial home of the Deceased on the
pretext of meeting the resident of the second floor but in actuality they
would threaten the Deceased, who was staying on the first floor of that
very house, with dire consequences. Respondent No. 1 along with one
Prashanth (accused No. 2), and one Jaganatha (accused No. 3) was
accused of killing the Appellant’s daughter. The investigation in Crime
No. 151/2019 was eventually completed, and a final report was submitted
       MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                             1065
                [SURYA KANT, J.]

on 01.03.2020 against four persons, including Respondent No. 1, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. In the final report, Respondent No. 1 was
accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife by giving a
‘supari’ to accused Nos. 2 and 3, who assaulted the Deceased fatally. All
the accused were arrested.
      13. Soon after his arrest, Respondent No. 1 applied for bail. The High
Court in the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 observed that though several
other cases were pending against Respondent No. 1; however, the allegations
against him in Crime No.151/2019 are punishable under Sections 109 and
120B, IPC only. The High Court observed that whether the material like cell
phone, and CCTV footage, was sufficient to prove the allegation of hatching
of a criminal conspiracy is a subject matter of trial, and there was no other
material as of then to show that Respondent No. 1 was in communication or
contact with other accused persons. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 was
directed to be released on bail.
    A.2. EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE GRANT OF BAIL AND
FILING OF PRESENT SLP:
     14. The aggrieved Appellant is in appeal before us. During the
pendency of these proceedings, some disturbing events have taken place
which are briefly noticed hereinafter:
     (a)   Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 16.04.2021,
           but the matter could be taken up for effective hearing on
           27.03.2023 only when it was informed that some complaints had
           been received against Respondent No. 1 after his enlargement
           on regular bail. Consequently, the Appellant was granted time
           to file an additional affidavit.
     (b)   On 24.04.2023, this Court was apprised that though the charges
           had been framed, the trial was yet to commence. The State
           counsel informed that there were 109 prosecution witnesses to
           be examined. We, thus, directed the Trial Court to commence
           the examination of prosecution witnesses. Respondent No.1 was
           directed to cooperate with the trial and remain present in the
           Court on the date of hearing.
1066           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.


       (c)   On 31.07.2023, an order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Trial
             Court was brought to our notice, which revealed that CW-1
             to CW-3 (Appellant and her family members) did not appear
             for their depositions and they were again served with non-
             bailable warrants. A fresh status report from the Trial Court was
             accordingly sought with a further direction that necessary steps,
             including coercive action be taken to ensure the presence of the
             witnesses.
      15. What has transpired thereafter is quite disheartening, and it pricks
the conscience of this Court. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that
there was a gap of around 20 days between the examination-in-chief and the
cross-examination of the key witnesses, who are none else than the Appellant
(PW-1), her daughter-Vidhya (sister of the Deceased, PW-4), and Muniraju
(father of the Deceased, PW-5). They all have turned hostile and retracted
from their earlier statements.
       B. CONTENTIONS:
      16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, regardless of her contradiction
in the cross-examination, vehemently contended that the High Court
committed a grave error in overlooking the well-established principles
which guide the Courts to exercise their discretion in the matter of granting
or refusing a bail. He urged that prima facie there is sufficient material
gathered by the prosecution to indicate the involvement of Respondent
No. 1 in a criminal conspiracy hatched for killing his wife. He also made a
pointed reference to the complaints alleging gross misuse of concession of
bail by Respondent No.1.
      17. Learned State Counsel has supported the Appellant reiterating that
Respondent No. 1 had been harassing the Deceased and was compelling
her to concede for divorce, with the intention to marry someone else. His
family members and relatives also continued to humiliate the Deceased
by demanding dowry and even attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene
over her. He further submitted that Respondent No. 1 has other criminal
antecedents also. He is involved in Crime No. 122/2017 under Section 3(1)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, and Sections 345(A)&(B), 341, 355, 323, 504 read with 34 of the
        MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                            1067
                 [SURYA KANT, J.]

IPC and Crime No. 205/2017 under Sections 96, and 97 of the KP Act and
Section 25B of the Arms Act. He further submitted that the Government
Pleader for the State of Karnataka had displayed the seized CCTV footage
and cell phone taken from the possession of Respondent No. 1 to link
him to the gruesome murder. He also made a submission to the effect that
Respondent No. 1 hardly spent a few months in custody and was enlarged
on bail soon after, overlooking the heinous nature of the offence committed
and the fact that Respondent No. 1 could influence the vulnerable witnesses
with his money and muscle power.
      18. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Narender Hooda,
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 very passionately urged that
barring the offences under Sections 302, 450, and 454 IPC, all other
offences are bailable in nature. Relying upon Sanjay Chandra v. Central
Bureau of Investigation2 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.3, he submitted that the seriousness of the charge is
not a test or factor while considering a bail application. He maintained that
Respondent No. 1 has never misused the concession of bail and there is no
cogent evidence produced so far by the prosecution linking Respondent No.
1 with the unnatural death of his wife. He emphasised that once the High
Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to Respondent No.1, this
Court should not interfere with it.
     C. ANALYSIS:
     19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
and perused the material on record. It appears that the sudden change of
stance shown by the most vital witnesses, namely, the family members of
the Deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief cannot be a mere
coincidence. The Appellant has been vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking
cancellation of bail given to Respondent No. 1. In her examination-in-chief,
she has specifically named Respondent No. 1 as the main conspirator in the
murder of her daughter. Her sudden somersault, therefore, cannot be easily
detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent No. 1 in


2   (2012) 1 SCC 40.
3   (2011) 1 SCC 694.
1068         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


the past, of influencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the
Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life. All these accusations,
for the limited purpose of these proceedings, do suggest that Respondent
No. 1 has the potential to influence the investigation or the witnesses who
were slated to depose against him. The seriousness of allegations levelled
against Respondent No. 1 by the Deceased during her lifetime or by the
Appellant before the Police or in this appeal ought to be evaluated against
this backdrop.
      20. This Court undoubtedly has a narrow scope of interference in an
order granting bail while exercising its power of judicial review and will
be invariably reluctant to interfere in such order even if it has a different
opinion. The Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to
liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution on one hand and the right
of the orderly society, which is committed to the rule of law, on the other.
The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration is drawn by releasing
a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that will ensure that a fair
and free trial is not hampered. However, if it is found that an undertrial has
attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses
or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person
can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.
      21. The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal
justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go
unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent
them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices
heard at every stage of the proceedings.
       C.1. THE REMEDIES IN LAW:
       C.1.1 CANCELLATION OF BAIL
     22. Where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case,
the Court is satisfied that there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances
indicating misuse of concession of bail, it becomes imperative upon the
Court in the interest of justice to withdraw such concession forthwith.
     23. The expression “cogent and overwhelming circumstances for
cancellation of bail” has been well-illustrated by this Court in a catena
        MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                             1069
                 [SURYA KANT, J.]

of decisions including Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana4,
which are:
     (i)   Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing
           or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted;
     (ii) Possibility of the accused to abscond;
     (iii) Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the
           principles of fair trial;
     (iv) The link between the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the
          accused, and the societal impact on the Court’s interference.
      24. In Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr.5, this Court
explained the impact of supervening circumstances developing post the
grant of bail, such as interference in the administration of justice, abuse of
concession of bail, etc., which are aversive to a fair trial and would warrant
cancellation of bail.
      25. Applying these parameters to the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand, we are satisfied that there is a prima facie proximity between
the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for
him to win over the witnesses. Respondent No.1, therefore, does not deserve
to enjoy the concession of bail at least until all the crucial witnesses are
examined. The privilege of liberty extended to him, thus, deserves to be
withdrawn for an effective, fair, just and unbiased conclusion of trial.
     C.1.2 ENSURING A FAIR TRIAL : RECALLING OF WITNESSES
     26. A major challenge before this Court is to ensure a fair trial amidst
the hostility of witnesses. Undoubtedly, witnesses play a very vital role in
bringing justice home, especially in the adversarial system of court trials
where the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
by bringing persons acquainted with the facts before the courts of justice.
Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law,
without which the court would be like a sailor in an ocean sans the radar



4   (1995) 1 SCC 349.
5   (2021) 15 SCC 518.
1070          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 14 S.C.R.


and the compass.6 If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is
reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage
to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the
efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded
and shattered.
       27. This Court in Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Haryana7 has
illustratively explained the reasons behind the witnesses retracting their
statements before the Court and turning hostile. These include: (i) threat/
intimidation; (ii) inducement by various means; (iii) use of muscle and
money power by the accused; (iv) use of stock witnesses; (v) protracted
trials; (vi) hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial;
and (vii) non-existence of a robust legislative mechanism to check hostility
of witnesses. Amongst these reasons, the ‘threat’ and ‘intimidation’ of the
witnesses have always been a matter of serious concern amongst all the
stakeholders.
       28. It seems to us that the unusual and surprising events that have
happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case
for recalling the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of
the trial. This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such
recourse not only under Article 142 of the Constitution but also under
Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereafter ‘CrPC’),
be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto. Such Constitutional
or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry,
trial, or other proceeding. A person can be called and examined though not
summoned as a witness, or can be recalled, or re-examined so as to throw
light upon the imputations. Section 311 CrPC, of course, does not intend
to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice
to the rights of an accused. The exercise of power under this provision is
intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence
to scoop out the truth.



6   Mohd. Ashraf, ‘Peculiarities of Indian Criminal Justice System Towards Witnesses :
    An Analysis’ (2018) 26 ALJ 64.
7   (2017) 1 SCC 529.
        MUNILAKSHMI v. NARENDRA BABU & ANR.                              1071
                 [SURYA KANT, J.]

      29. In the case at hand, the family members of the Deceased are the
most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by
the prosecution. Their stand in the examination-in-chief is diametrically
opposite to the one in the cross-examination. The fact that the parents and
sister of the Deceased have resiled from their earlier standpoint where they
had been found to be agitating vigorously before different forums since the
year 2019, implores us to invoke our Constitutional powers under Article
142 read with Section 311 CrPC and direct their recalling for a fresh cross-
examination after ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of
threat, psychological fear, or any inducement.
      30. We, thus, find it a case fit for recalling the witnesses (PW-1, PW-4
and PW-5) for their further cross-examination to reach an effective decision
in the subject trial.
      31. We, however, hasten to add that power to recall witnesses under
Section 311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a
witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession
of bail. Still further, the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing
on the merits of the pending trial.
     D. CONCLUSION:
    32. In view of the above discussion and without expressing anything
on merits, we allow this Appeal with the following directions:
     (i)   the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 is set aside and the bail
           granted to Respondent No. 1 is hereby cancelled;
     (ii) Respondent No. 1 is directed to surrender not later than one week.
          He shall remain in custody till the conclusion of trial or till this
          Court releases him on bail in changed circumstances;
     (iii) the Trial Court is directed to recall PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5 for
           their further cross-examination;
     (iv) the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru is directed to provide
          security to the Appellant and her family, including her daughter
          (PW-4), round the clock at least till their fresh depositions;
1072           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


       (v)   the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru is further directed to
             investigate as to whether the Appellant and her family members
             were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure
             for retracting their statements. Such a report be presented before
             the Trial Court within 2 weeks subject to the right of objection
             to Respondent No. 1 and his co-accused, if there is any finding
             against them in such report; and;
       (vi) the Trial Court will closely observe the demeanour of Respondent
            No.1 or his counsel during further cross-examination of the
            Appellant, PW-4, PW-5 and other important prosecution
            witnesses. No minacious gesture or appeasing expressions be
            allowed so that the voluntary, free and unpolluted version of all
            the material witnesses is brought on record.
       33. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.


Headnotes prepared by:                                         Appeal disposed of.
Divya Pandey