Lachhman Dass vs. Resham Chand Kaler and Ors. (23.01.

2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/0028/2018

The order of the High Court on the first instance clearly points out that it has virtually directed the
course of action to be undertaken by the subordinate court. It is not expected from the High Court to
pass such mandatory orders commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail. Recently,
this Court on similar facts in Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, has laid down that courts cannot issue
mandatory directions which breach the independence of subordinate courts. Therefore, such circuitous
method undertaken by the Respondent in obtaining a bail is a gross abuse of the court process
undertaken in bad faith. Moreover, our attention is drawn to the fact that he was declared as a
proclaimed offender before the grant of bail, which was not taken into consideration by the High Court.
In light of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the concerned
authorities to take the Respondent No. 1 herein into custody forthwith.

State and Ors. vs. Amarmani Tripathi and Ors. (26.09.2005 - SC) : MANU/SC/0677/2005

The High Court practically failed to consider/take into consideration the voluminous evidence which had
been collected by the investigation agency and have been referred to by them in their statement of
objections to the application for grant of bail. The High Court has failed to deal with the vast material
placed by the CBI which clearly indicated that the accused has, at all material times, tried to interfere
with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create
obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case.

There is voluminous evidence collected by the CBI to show the involvement of Amarmani Tripathi, and
his effort to interfere with the investigation of the case before the grant of bail and also after the grant
of bail. He tried to change the course of investigation by creating false evidence of the marriage of
Madhumita with Anuj Mishra. There are written complaints with the investigating agency showing that
after his release on bail Amarmani Tripathi tried to threaten as well as win over Nidhi Shukla, sister of
the deceased, and her mother by offering bribe. In our opinion, the High Court gravely erred in granting
bail to Amarmani Tripathi in such circumstances.

The learned Single Judge has, however, completely ignored these materials relating to tampering with
evidence/witnesses. This necessitates interference with the order of the High Court.
Mahesh Pahade vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (18.07.2018 - MPHC) : MANU/MP/0291/2018

Once right of appeal has been given to a victim, it shall include all ancillary rights which are attached
with the right to appeal. Such right to appeal will include right to seek cancellation of bail if the victim is
aggrieved against such an order. In view of this, we find that the victim has a right to seek cancellation of
an order of suspension of sentence, as it is her rights and honour, which is in issue apart from the crime
against humanity protected by the State.

The declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime issued by General Assembly of United
Nations provides for victim to obtain redress through formal and informal procedures that are
expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Such declaration contemplates that responsiveness of
judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by informing the
victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings including allowing the views
and concerns of the victims to be presented and considered at the appropriate stages of the
proceedings where their personal interests are involved. Therefore, though it is the responsibility of the
State to bring the accused to law but in such process the actual sufferer of crime cannot be permitted to
stay outside the law and to watch the proceedings from hindsight. It will be travesty of justice if the
victims of such heinous crime are denied right to address their grievances before the courts of law.