2021 INSC 0299 NON­REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586  OF 2021    (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3679 of 2021) Mamta Nair                .…Appellant(s) Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.   ….  Respondent(s)     O R D E R                 Leave granted.    2.     The   instant   appeal   is   assailing   the   order   dated 01.12.2020   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Fourth   Bail   Application   No.13680/2020.   The   appellant herein   is   the   sister   of   respondent   No.   2   and   the   wife   of the deceased. Since it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 is the main conspirator in the crime leading to the killing of   the   husband   of   the   appellant,   the   appellant   is aggrieved   by   the   order   impugned   whereunder   the respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be enlarged on bail. 3.     The   issue   relates   to   the   complaint   in   FIR   No.   235   of 2017   dated   17.05.2017   registered   in   the   Police   Station Page 1 of 6 Karni Vihar for  the offence under  Sections 302, 452 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The mother­ in­law of the appellant Smt. Rama Devi Nair, who is also the mother of the deceased had lodged the said complaint. According to the   complainant   and   the   appellant   herein,   the   husband of the appellant has been killed by the family members of the   appellant   as   an   honor   killing   since   they   had   not agreed   to   the   marriage   between   the   deceased   and   the appellant.   The   further   details   relating   to   the   incident need   not   be   referred   to   herein   since   the   allegations   and the defence thereto is still open to be urged by the parties in   the   trial   which   is   pending   before   the   Sessions   Court. Further,   the   limited   aspect   required   in   a   matter   relating to   bail   has   already   been   taken   note   by   this   Court   while disposing   of   an   earlier   Criminal   Appeal   No.   780   of   2018 relating to the same incident.  4.     The   grievance   in   the   instant   appeal   is   that   the   High Court without taking into consideration all these aspects of   the   matter   has   enlarged   the   respondent   No.   2   on   bail Page 2 of 6 in   a   mechanical   manner   through   an   order   bereft   of reasons. 5.  In that background we have heard Ms. Indira Jaising, learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellant,   Shri   H.D. Thanvi,   learned   Government   Advocate   for   the   State   of Rajasthan,   Shri   V.K.   Shukla,   learned   senior   counsel   for respondent   No.   2   and   perused   the   impugned   order   as also the other material on record. 6.  The impugned order dated 01.12.2020 in fact refers to the   contention   of   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   No.   2 herein   that   on   an   earlier   instance   this   Court   had cancelled   the   bail   and   thereafter   the   statement   of witnesses   has   been   recorded.   The   counsel   for   the respondent No. 2 referred to the evidence of the appellant herein   and   in   that   context   sought   for   bail   to   release respondent   No.   2.   However,   the   High   Court   has   not assigned   any   reason   whatsoever   except   referring   to   the said   contention.   Be   that   as   it   may,   as   noted,   an   earlier order   dated   03.11.2017   had   been   passed   by   the   High Court   enlarging   the   respondent   No.   2,   Mukesh Page 3 of 6 Chaudhary   on   bail.   The   mother­in­law   of   the   appellant herein Smt. Rama Devi Nair had assailed the said order. This   Court   while   taking   note   of   the   fact   situation   and before   concluding   that   the   bail   is   to   be   cancelled   has recorded as hereunder:­   “   The   reading   of   the   FIR   and   the   charge sheet   shows   that   prima   facie   there   is material   against   the   respondent   No.   2   and in view of that, we are of the opinion that for the time being, it is not proper to extend the liberty   of   bail   to   the   respondent   No.   2.   In view of the pendency of the trial, we are not inclined to go into the details of the case.” 7.     The   documents   already   taken   note   by   this   Court indicates   that   there   is   prima   facie   material   against   the respondent No. 2.   Though the appellant herein, i.e., the wife of the deceased has been examined and a contention has been put forth with regard to her statement, it is not the   evidence   in   its   entirety   and   it   is   premature   to conclude   on   the   basis   of   a   stray   sentence.   Further, merely   classifying   the   appellant   as   the   principal   star witness   and   referring   to   her   statement   is   of   no consequence   since   the   entire   evidence   will   have   to   be assessed   by   the   Sessions   Court   before   arriving   at   a Page 4 of 6 conclusion. If that be the position when this Court at an earlier   instance   had   taken   note   of   all   aspects   and   had arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   there   is   prima   facie material   against   the   respondent   No.   2,   the   mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as   a   change   in   circumstance   for   the   High   Court   to consider the fourth bail application of the respondent No. 2 and enlarge him on bail. 8. In the above background, we are of the considered opinion   that   the   order   dated   01.12.2020   passed   by   the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, impugned   herein   is   not   sustainable.   The   same   is accordingly  set  aside  and the  bail granted to  respondent No.   2   is   cancelled.   We,   therefore,   direct   the   respondent No.   2­Mukesh   Chaudhary   to   surrender   before   the   Court of   Upper   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Sr.   No.   7,   Jaipur City.   We   make   it   clear   that   we   have   not   expressed   any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall consider   the   case   being   uninfluenced   by   any   of   the observations herein.  Page 5 of 6 9.     The High Court at the time of passing the impugned order   has   taken   note   that   17   witnesses   out   of   47 witnesses have been examined so far. It is not in dispute that   at   this   point   in   time   21   witnesses   have   been examined   and   the   trial   is   proceeding.   Taking   into consideration   the   nature   of   the   offence,   it   is   appropriate that the trial be concluded at the earliest. The trial court shall   therefore   make   all   efforts   to   conclude   the   trial   and dispose   of   the   case   as   expeditiously   as   possible   but   in any event not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  11. Pending   applications   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed of. ………….…………CJI (N.V. RAMANA)           ………….…………….J.                                             (A.S. BOPANNA)      ………….…………….J.                                               (HRISHIKESH ROY) New Delhi, July 12, 2021 Page 6 of 6