SHRI MAHADEV MEENAversusPRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER

214                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    9 S.C.R. 214                 [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A                          SHRI MAHADEV MEENA
                                         v.
                    PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2021)
B                             SEPTEMBER27, 2021
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND BV
                       NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860– ss.302, 120B – Bail – Murder of
      appellant’s son – FIR inter alia alleged involvement of first respondent
C
      and his proximity with deceased’s wife (co-accused) – Eventually,
      first respondent granted bail – On appeal, held: High Court was in
      error in allowing the application for bail – It ought to have had due
      regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime – Deceased was
      employed with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi – First
D     respondent being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at
      Jhalawar, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and
      of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted – Bail was
      granted to the co-accused on the ground that she had a child of
      eleven months with her in jail – This cannot be the basis to claim
      parity – A major role was attributed to first respondent in the murder
E
      of the deceased – Impugned order set aside.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The order of the High Court contains serious
      infirmities. The High Court has noted that there was a delay in
F     lodging the FIR. Prima facie, on 14 February 2018, the appellant
      furnished a written intimation to the SHO at PS Jhalawar Sadar
      recording the unnatural death of his son who had travelled from
      New Delhi to Jhalawar, upon the discovery of the body close to
      the railway tracks at around 8.30 pm. The initial intimation
      recorded that while there was no injury on the body, the nails of
G     the hands and feet of the deceased were found to have turned
      blue and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances. It
      was on the basis of this statement that on 15 February 2018, an
      unnatural death was recorded under Section 174 of the CrPC.
      The post-mortem report of 15 February 2018 indicates that the
H
                                        214
   SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                           215
                   ANOTHER

cause of death would be determined once histopathological              A
examination of the viscera is concluded. The report dated 10
March 2018, of the Department of Pathology at the Jhalawar
Medical College & SRG Hospital showed congestion in the lungs
and pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018, the FIR was registered
at PS Jhalawar Sadar. The FIR contains specific allegations against
                                                                       B
the first respondent in respect of (i) his proximity to the wife of
the deceased; (ii) the deceased having objected to the first
respondent visiting their marital home and directing him to cease
doing so; and (iii) the call data records and WhatsApp messages
exchanged between the first respondent, the deceased and the
co-accused. While the initial report of the FSL, Jaipur, dated 4       C
May 2018, was negative for metallic poison, ethyl and methyl
alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and
insecticides, the report dated 25 October 2018 indicates that the
remnants of the viscera samples had tested positive for the
presence of Ketamine, an anesthetic drug. The High Court ought
                                                                       D
to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the
crime. The deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau
in New Delhi. The first respondent is an employee of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. The material which has emerged
during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or
glossed over (as the High Court has done). The first respondent        E
himself being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at
Jhalawar, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and
of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted. At this
stage, when the Court is called upon to evaluate whether a case
for the grant of bail has been made out, it is inappropriate to
                                                                       F
enter upon matters which would form the subject of the trial when
evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Bail was granted to the
co-accused primarily and substantially on the ground that she
had a child of eleven months with her in jail. This cannot be the
basis to a claim of parity on the part of the first respondent. The
first respondent cannot claim parity with the co-accused since         G
the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from
the investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to
him in the murder of the deceased. The High Court was in error
in allowing the application for bail. The consideration that twenty-
five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined
                                                                       H
216                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     must equally be weighed with the seriousness of the crime, the
      role attributed to the first respondent and the likelihood of the
      evidence being tampered with if the first respondent were to
      remain on bail during the course of the trial. In this backdrop, it
      was wholly inappropriate for the High Court to proceed on the
      surmise that the police had “developed a case” that Ketamine
B
      was administered, after four months of the incident. The impugned
      order of the High Court is set aside. The first respondent shall
      surrender forthwith and be taken into custody. [Paras 12, 14, 15
      and 16][223-D-H; 224-A-B; 226-D-H; 227-A-B]
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
C     No.1089 of 2021
            From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal
      No.85 of 2021.

D           Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh Rathore, Dashrath
      Singh, Ms. Manisha Chava, Ms. Ameya Thanvi for Gp. Capt. Karan
      Singh Bhati, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Siddartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Rishi Matoliya, Ms. Sumati Sharma,
      Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Vinod Khandal, Ms. Iti Jain, Pradeep Matoliya,
E     Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
            1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 12 February 2021, of
      a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at the
F
      Bench at Jaipur by which the first respondent has been enlarged on bail.
      The appellant is the father of the deceased at whose behest the first
      information report1 was registered.
             2. The appellant’s son was a Senior Technical Officer with the
      Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. On 21 January, 2011, he got married
G     to Anita Meena, who is a co-accused implicated in his murder. The
      couple had two young children aged 6 years and 4 months. The
      relationship of the couple is alleged to have encountered difficulties. On
      14 February 2018, the deceased travelled from New Delhi to

      1
H         ‘‘FIR’’
    SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                217
    ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Ramgajmandi from where he boarded a train at 1800 hours for Jhalawar         A
where his home was situated. Between 7: 30 and 8.00pm, the appellant
received a phone call that his son had been found in an unconscious
state near Railway Crossing Puliya and was declared brought dead at
the hospital. On 14 February 2018, the appellant submitted a written
intimation to the SHO Jhalawar on the basis of which, Merg Report
                                                                             B
No.04/2018 was registered by the police. On 15 February 2018,the post-
mortem was conducted by a Medical Board constituted by the Medical
Superintendent of BRS Hospital, which reported that the right lung, liver,
spleen and kidneys were congested. The remarks of the Medical Officer
indicated that the viscera was preserved for chemical and
histopathological examination and a final opinion regarding the cause of     C
death would be furnished after receiving those reports. On the same
day, an unnatural death was registered under the provisions of Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 with UD No.0004/2018 at
the instance of the appellant. On 28 February2018, samples of the viscera
obtained during the post-mortem were sent to the Medical College
                                                                             D
Jhalawar and Forensic Science Laboratory3, Jaipur, for examination.
       3. On 5 March 2018, the appellant submitted an application to the
Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar for the registration of an FIR.No
action having been taken on the basis of the application, the appellant
submitted a written complaint on 9 March 2018 to the CJM, Jhalawar,
who ordered an investigation. On 10 March 2018, the histopathological        E
report was received from the Department of Pathology, Jhalawar Medical
College and SRG Hospital which indicated that the lungs of the deceased
showed signs of congestion and pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018,
FIR No.69/2018 was registered by PS Jhalawar Sadar under Sections
302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code4.The contents of the FIR, which        F
was registered at the behest of the appellant, indicate that:
       (i)    The appellant’s son married Anita Meena on 21 January
              2011;
       (ii)   Six months after his marriage, the appellant’s son was
              selected for appointment with the Intelligence Bureau while    G
              his spouse was working as a teacher with the Panchayat
              Samiti;
2
  ‘‘CrPC’’
3
  ‘‘FSL’’
4
  ‘‘IPC’’                                                                    H
218         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     (iii)   Together, the deceased and his spouse had purchased a
              house at Jhalawar behind Jhalawar’s housing board colony
              through the first respondent who was working with the Anti-
              Corruption Bureau in Jhalawar;
      (iv)    The couple had two children aged 6 years and 4 months;
B     (v)     The deceased had proceeded to Ramganjmandi on 14
              February 2018, and thereafter for Jhalawar by train.
              Between 7.30 and 8.00pm, his body was found about 30
              meters away from the railway crossing culvert. The house
              of the deceased is behind a housing board colony, which is
C             about 500 meters away from the railway station. The body
              was taken by his brother-in-law to Jhalawar SRG Hospital
              where he was brought dead;
      (vi)    The homicidal death of the appellant’s son had occurred as
              a result of a conspiracy to murder him and previously on 5
D             January 2018, an attempt had been made to kill him while
              he was on his way from Jhalawar to Ramganjmandi;
      (vii)   While the first respondent was working as a constable in
              the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhalawar, his wife was working
              in a school together with the wife of the deceased. About
E             two months prior to the incident, the deceased had called
              upon the first respondent not to visit their house anymore;
      (viii) After the death of the appellant’s son, the first respondent
             was not present either in the hospital or during the cremation;
      (ix)    The arrival of the deceased from Delhi to Jhalawar was
F             within the knowledge of his wife and the first respondent,
              which would be evident from the call data records;
      (x)     The first respondent was present at every hour when the
              wife of the deceased delivered a child and he had developed
              close relations with her;
G     (xi)    The body had been planted by killing the deceased at some
              other place under a conspiracy and the murder has been
              committed using a special method; and
      (xii)   The first respondent had been an active participant in the
              case involving the murder of the deceased.
H
    SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                219
    ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      4. On 9 May 2018, FSL report 285/2018 dated 4 May 2018, was            A
received from the FSL, Jaipur, stating:
      “RESULT OF EXAMINATION
      On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-5) and blood
      sample (6) from three packets marked A, B and C respectively
      gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol,    B
      cyanide, alkaloids, Barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides.”
       5. Based on an analysis of the call details records, co-accused
Shahrukh Khan was arrested on 19 June 2018. The first respondent
was found to be absconding. It is alleged that the call data records show
that on the date of the incident the accused persons were in                 C
communication with each other. During the course of the investigation,
it was allegedly revealed by Sharukh Khan that the death of the deceased
had occurred by injecting him with ketamine, an anesthetic drug. A report
of the Medical Board, constituted by the police, dated 19 June 2018 was
called. The relevant extracts are reproduced below:                          D
      “Q. No. 4- Can (sic) use this injection for any criminal purpose?
      If yes, How?
      Ans. No. 4- The possibility of criminal use of this injection cannot
      be ruled out. The person can be sedated by this injection, which
      reduces his or her ability to resist.                                  E
      Q. No. 6- Whether giving heavy dose of Ketamine Injection can
      cause Lungs congestion and pulmonary edema or not?
      Ans. No. 6- Lungs congestion & pulmonary edema is possible if
      a person has hypoxia or asphyxia by giving heavy dose of Ketamine
                                                                             F
      Injection.”
      6. During the course of the investigation, statements were recorded
under Section 161 CrPC, including the statement of (i) Chotmal Kashyap
dated 22 June 2018; and (ii) Manohar Rathore dated 12 August 2018.
       7. The first of these statements was of a resident of Jhalawar        G
who claims to have seen the deceased disembarking at the railway station
and going towards the road of the housing board. While coming out of
the station, he allegedly saw the first respondent along with two other
persons in a Ford Figo vehicle. According to him, the first respondent
stepped out of the vehicle and went towards the same road. The second
                                                                             H
220            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     statement under Section 161 CrPC is of a relative of the first respondent
      whose services were being used as a driver by the first respondent. He
      has narrated certain events which took place on 3 May 2018, 9 May
      2018 and 14 June 2018, when the first respondent is alleged to have
      visited the FSL at Jaipur.
B            8. Apart from the statements under Section 161 CrPC, on 23
      June 2018, a recovery was made at the behest of co-accused Santosh
      Nirmal of a personal diary stored in a bag in the Operation Theatre
      Store at the Orthopedic Hospital, Jhalawar. The diary is apparently printed
      of the year 2010. It is alleged to contain telephone numbers of several
      persons including the first respondent against the date 15 January, while
C     against the date of 16 January, it records that injections of two ketamine
      vials 10 ml/500mg had been handed over to the first respondent. Santosh
      Nirmal, who worked as an Assistant in the Trauma Centre, Jhalawar,
      was arrested on 21 June 2018.On 24 June 2018, a vial of ketamine and
      syringe were alleged to have been discovered in consequence of
D     information received from accused Shahrukh Khan. The wife of the
      deceased was arrested on 25 June 2018, while co-accused Farhan Khan
      was arrested on 28 June 2018.The mobile phone of the wife of the
      deceased was seized and it showed that she had been in constant touch
      with the first respondent after the death of her husband. The first
      respondent was arrested on 18 August 2018.It is alleged that on 19 August
E     2018, the police recovered an empty vial of ketamine, a syringe, mobile
      cover and a pair of glasses (spectacles) belonging to the deceased in
      consequence of the information furnished by the first respondent under
      Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.On 25 October 2018, a
      report of the State FSL at Jaipur was submitted indicating that the samples
F     of remnants containing viscera had tested positive for the presence of
      the drug, Ketamine.
             9. On 2 September 2018, a charge sheet was submitted for
      offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120B of the IPC and under
      Section 3(2)(v), SC/ST Act, against the first respondent and four other
G     co-accused, namely, (i) Anita Meena, (ii) Shahrukh Khan, (iii) Farhan
      Khan and (iv) Santosh Nirmal. The application for bail filed by the first
      respondent was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 26
      February 2019.The co-accused Anita Meena was granted bail on 4 June
      2019.The High Court noted that she had a child of eleven months and
      due to her incarceration, her child was also confined with her in the jail.
H
    SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                   221
    ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

A Special Leave Petition filed against the order granting bail to the co-       A
accused (Anita Meena) on the above ground was dismissed by this Court
on 6 September 2019.On 5 August 2020 and 23 November 2020, the
High Court dismissed the application for bail filed by the first respondent
as withdrawn. The Special Judge SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, Jhalawar dismissed the bail application filed the first respondent
                                                                                B
on 19 December 2020. Eventually, by the impugned order dated 12
February 2021, the Single Judge has allowed the application for bail.In
allowing the application, the High Court has relied upon on the following
circumstances:
      (i)     The appellant was in custody for a period of two and a half
              years;                                                            C

      (ii)    Out of seventy-six witnesses only twenty-five have been
              examined;
      (iii)   There was a delay in lodging the FIR;
      (iv)    While the initial FSL report did not contain any reference to     D
              the use of the Ketamine, it was after four months that police
              had developed a case that Ketamine was administered to
              the deceased; and
      (v)     The co-accused had been enlarged on bail.
                                                                                E
       10. Ms Chitrangda Rastravara, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submitted that there has been a serious error on
the part of the High Court in enlarging the first respondent on bail. Learned
Counsel submitted that:
      (i)     There was no delay on the part of the appellant in lodging
                                                                                F
              the written intimation about the unnatural death of his son
              immediately after the incident on 14 February 2018;
      (ii)    On 15 February 2018, a report of an unnatural death was
              registered under the provisions of Section 174 of the CrPC;
      (iii)   The police initially failed to register the FIR and it was only   G
              on 12 April, 2018 that FIR 69/2018 was registered at PS
              Jhalabad Sadar;
      (iv)    The charge sheet has been filed after investigation and
              though the case ultimately rests on circumstantial evidence,
                                                                                H
222                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A                    there is sufficient material on record, at this stage, to indicate
                     the involvement of the first respondent;
            (v)      The FSL report indicates the presence of the drug Ketamine
                     while even the earlier report which has been brought on
                     record demonstrates pulmonary edema in the lungs of the
B                    deceased, which was a likely consequence of the
                     administration of Ketamine;
            (vi)     The High Court in granting bail has failed to notice the
                     seriousness and gravity of the crime involving the murder
                     of the appellant’s son, who was employed with the
C                    Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi;
            (vii)    The first respondent is a constable employed with the Anti-
                     Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. There is every likelihood
                     of the evidence being tampered with if the first respondent
                     is enlarged on bail; and
D           (viii) The circumstances which weighed with the High Court in
                   granting bail to the co-accused Anita Meena, namely, that
                   she had an infant of eleven months would demonstrate that
                   bail was granted in special circumstance. The first
                   respondent who is a prime accused cannot claim parity.
E          11. On the other hand, Mr Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior
      Counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that:
            (i)      At this stage when the court is dealing with the grant of
                     bail, there is no material on record to implicate the first
                     respondent, where the case of the prosecution would rest
F                    on circumstantial evidence;
            (ii)     The recovery of the diary of co-accused Santosh Nirmal
                     regarding the handing over of the Ketamine vial to the first
                     respondent would be inadmissible in evidence against the
                     first respondent;
G           (iii)    The recoveries which have been madeover six months after
                     the date of the incident, after the arrest of the first respondent
                     on 18 August 2018, from a public place would have to be
                     discounted;

H
    SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                 223
    ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      (iv)   The initial FSL report did not contain a reference to the        A
             presence of Ketamine while it is only in a subsequent FSL
             report that traces of the drug have been noticed. The
             burden would lie on the prosecution to explain the
             circumstances in which this fact emerged belatedly in the
             report dated 25 October 2018 nearly eight months after the
                                                                              B
             date of incident;
      (v)    The statement given by Chotmal Kashyap under Section
             161 of the CrPC does not disclose that the deceased and
             the first respondent were last seen together. Further,
             Chotmal Kashyap has made a profession out of appearing
             as witness in many cases; and                                    C

      (vi)   The first respondent should be enlarged on bail on the ground
             of parity with the co-accused.
        12. The order of the High Court contains serious infirmities.The
High Court has noted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR.Prima          D
facie, the narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment would
indicate that on 14 February 2018, the appellant furnished a written
intimation to the SHO at PS Jhalawar Sadar recording the unnatural
death of his son who had travelled from New Delhi to Jhalawar, upon
the discovery of the body close to the railway tracks at around 8.30 pm.The
initial intimation recorded that while there was no injury on the body, the   E
nails of the hands and feet of the deceased were found to have turned
blue and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances. It was on
the basis of this statement that on 15 February 2018, an unnatural death
was recorded under Section 174 of the CrPC.The post-mortem report
of 15 February 2018 indicates that the cause of death would be determined     F
once histopathological examination of the viscera is concluded. The report
dated 10 March 2018, of the Department of Pathology at the Jhalawar
Medical College & SRG Hospital showed congestion in the lungs and
pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018, the FIR was registered at PS
Jhalawar Sadar.The FIR contains specific allegations against the first
respondent in respect of(i) his proximity to the wife of the deceased; (ii)   G
the deceased having objected to the first respondent visiting their marital
home and directing him to cease doing so; and (iii) the call data records
and WhatsApp messages exchanged between the first respondent, the
deceased and the co-accused Anita Meena. While the initial report of
the FSL, Jaipur, dated 4 May 2018,was negative for metallic poison,           H
224               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers
      and insecticides, the report dated 25 October 2018 indicates that the
      remnants of the viscera samples had tested positive for the presence of
      Ketamine, an anesthetic drug.
             13. Having analyzed prima facie the circumstances in which the
B     offence was committed and the nature of the allegations, it will be useful
      to refer to the precedents of this Court governing the grant of bail. A
      two-judge Bench of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan
      Singh5 has listed the considerations that govern the grant of bail without
      attributing an exhaustive character to them. This Court has observed:
C              “4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed
               to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture,
               though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive,
               neither there can be any. The considerations being:
                      (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
D              only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
               punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature
               of evidence in support of the accusations.
                      (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
               tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the
E              complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of
               grant of bail.
                      (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
               establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but
               there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in
F              support of the charge.
                      (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
               and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
               considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there
               being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the
               normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
G
               bail.”
             This Court has further elucidated on the power of the court to
      interfere with an order of bail in the following terms:

      5
H         (2002) 3 SCC 598
       SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                  225
       ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but,              A
         however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner
         and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent
         reason cannot be sustained.”
       The above principles have been reiterated by a two judge Bench
of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee6:                      B
         “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with
         an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the
         accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
         exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
         compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of          C
         decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
         other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
         considering an application for bail are:
             (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
             believe that the accused had committed the offence;                  D
             (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
             (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
             (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released
             on bail;
                                                                                  E
             (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
             accused;
             (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
             (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
             and                                                                  F

             (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
             bail.
             [internal citation omitted]”
     In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai                               G
Makwana7, a two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Justice
DY Chandrachud) was a part, has held that the High Court while granting

6
    (2010) 14 SCC 496
7
    2021 (6) SCC 230                                                              H
226             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     bail must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of
      parity. This Court observed:
            “26.…The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central
            aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must
            focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another
B           accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon
            is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail
            on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect
            of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation
            to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The
            High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic
C           assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under
            the law.”
             14. The High Court ought to have had due regard to the
      seriousness and gravity of the crime. The deceased was employed with
      the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi. The first respondent is an employee
D     of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. The material which has
      emerged during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or
      glossed over (as the High Court has done). The first respondent himself
      being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar, the
      likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses
E     being suborned cannot be discounted. At this stage, when the Court is
      called upon to evaluate whether a case for the grant of bail has been
      made out, it is inappropriate to enter upon matters which would form the
      subject of the trial when evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Bail
      was granted to the co-accused Anita Meena primarily and substantially
      on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail. This
F     cannot be the basis to a claim of parity on the part of the first respondent.
      The first respondent cannot claim parity with the co-accused since the
      allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from the
      investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to him in the
      murder of the deceased.
G           15. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that
      the High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail. The
      consideration that twenty-five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses
      had been examined must equally be weighed with the seriousness of the
      crime, the role attributed to the first respondent and the likelihood of the
H     evidence being tampered with if the first respondent were to remain on
    SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND                                  227
    ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

bail during the course of the trial.In this backdrop, it was wholly            A
inappropriate for the High Court to proceed on the surmise that the
police had “developed a case” that Ketamine was administered, after
four months of the incident.
        16. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order of the High Court dated 12 February, 2021 enlarging the         B
first respondent on bail.As a consequence, the first respondent shall
surrender forthwith and be taken into custody.
      17. All observations in this judgment are for the purpose of the
present case and will not have a bearing on the final outcome of the trial.
      18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.                   C


Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.


                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H