Suman Dey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India. The Court noted that the Ratnambar Kaushik case was entirely based on documentary evidence related to tax avoidance, whereas the present case involves serious allegations of an attempt to eliminate the victim for various reasons, which require thorough examination. Therefore, the Court found the present case not to be a fit case for granting bail, especially as other material witnesses are yet to be examined. While acknowledging the applicant's period of custody, the Court declined to grant bail. Instead, it directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The application was disposed of in terms of this direction.

Facts

This is the third bail application filed by Suman Dey, the applicant, in connection with Crime No. 671/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur, for offences under Sections 307, 458, 120-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has been in custody since November 25, 2021. The first two bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant's counsel argued that the victim, Mithun Singh, has been examined, and since a vital prosecution witness has testified, there is no risk of evidence tampering. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which granted bail in a GST matter where the accused was in custody for a sufficient period, investigation was complete, and evidence was documentary and electronic. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the injuries, including strangulation and ligature marks, and the victim's initial inability to give a statement. They also pointed to allegations of an illicit relationship and the existence of sixteen witnesses, with only three examined so far.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the stage of the investigation and trial, and the applicant's period of custody? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that since the victim has been examined and the investigation is complete with the filing of the chargesheet, there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 621, which granted bail in a GST-related case based on the accused's prolonged custody, completed investigation, and documentary/electronic evidence, suggesting no risk of influencing witnesses. The applicant contended that these principles should apply to their case, especially given their custody since November 25, 2021. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offences, including attempted murder, and the serious nature of the victim's injuries (strangulation and ligature marks). They argued that the victim was initially in critical condition and unable to provide a statement. The State contended that the applicant might tamper with the evidence of the remaining witnesses, citing allegations of an illicit relationship as a motive. They urged the court to direct the trial court to expedite the trial rather than grant bail.