/2022 INSC 0023/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1655 OF 2021
Jayaben                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
WITH 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1656 OF 2021
Jayaben                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya  & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgments   and   orders   dated   04.02.2019   and   05.04.2019
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   at   Ahmedabad   in
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2018 and R/Criminal Appeal
No.389   of   2019   by   which   the   High   Court   has   released   the
respective   respondents   No.1   –   accused,   the   original
complainant has preferred the present appeals. 
1

2. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   facts   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.1655   of   2021   arising   out   of   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   dated   04.02.2019   passed   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.1502
of 2018 are narrated which are as under: ­
2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the original complainant –
appellant herein, her  aunt Smt. Savitaben  and her  husband
Mukeshbhai   (deceased)   went   to   collect   scrap   from   the   open
space outside a factory. When they were picking scrap on the
backside   of   the   factory   area,   five   persons   (accused)   came
there   and   started   abusing   them   and   thereafter   initially
started   beating   all   three   of   them   outside   the   factory.   That
thereafter   five   accused   persons   tied   Mukeshbhai   –   husband
of   the   original   complainant   to   the   gate   of   the   factory   and
started   beating   him.   As   per   the   case   of   the   prosecution
Jayaben   –   original   complainant   and   her   aunt   were   asked   to
leave.   They   left   and   thereafter   informed   their   relatives   and
friends   and   when   they   returned,   they   found   Mukeshbhai
unconscious   and   seriously   injured.   He   was   taken   to   the
hospital   where   he   was   declared   dead.   A   First   Information
Report   was   registered   at   Police   Station,   Shapar   (Veraval)   as
C.R.   No.   I/38   of   2018   against   the   five   accused   including
2

respective   respondents   No.1   herein   for   the   offences   under
Sections   302,   114,   323   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   Section
135, 37(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the
Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of
Atrocities)   Act.   Investigation   was   carried   out   by   the
concerned   Dy.SP   Gondal   division   and   thereafter   by   Dy.SP
(SC   &   ST   Cell)   Rajkot   Rural.   After   investigation   all   the
accused persons (five in numbers) came to be chargesheeted
for the offences under Sections  302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147,
148,   149   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   1860,   Section   3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(5)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled   Tribes
(Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989   and   Section   135   of   the
Gujarat Police Act, 1951  having committed the murder of the
deceased   –   Mukeshbhai   –   husband   of   the   appellant   –
Jayaben.   That   respondent   No.1   herein   moved   a   bail
application   before   the   learned   Sessions   Court,   Gondal
seeking   release   on   bail,   which   came   to   be   dismissed   vide
order   dated   18.09.2018.   Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied
with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court rejecting
the bail application and refusing to release respondent No.1 –
accused on bail, respondent No.1 – accused preferred present
3

Criminal   Appeal   No.1502   of   2018   before   the   High   Court.   By
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   04.02.2019,   the
High Court has released respondent No.1 – original accused –
Tejas Kanubhai Zala on bail in connection with the aforesaid
case.   By   subsequent   judgment   and   order   dated   05.04.2019
in another Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2019 another accused
–   Jaysukhbhai   Devrajbhai   Radadiya   ­   respondent   No.1   has
been   released   on   bail   mainly   considering   the   fact   that   co­
accused – Tejas Kanubhai Zala has been released on bail and
also  by  observing  that  so  far   as the  said accused  except the
fact   that   he   was   found   standing   near   the   place   of   incident
there is no further material against him. 
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing
respective respondents No.1 on bail, the original complainant
has preferred the present appeals.
4. We   have   heard   Shri   Colin   Gonsalves,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Ms.   Aastha
Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and
Shri   Huzefa   Ahmadi   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on
behalf   of   respondent   No.1   –   accused   ­   Tejas   Kanubhai   Zala
4

and   Shri   Purvish   Jitendra   Malkan,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.1   –   accused   ­
Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya .
5. Shri Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of   the   appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially
erred   in   releasing   the   accused   on   bail   in   a   case   where   the
husband of the complainant was murdered brutally. 
5.1 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated
the fact that after a thorough investigation, the accused were
chargesheeted for the offences under Sections  302, 342, 354,
323,   143,   147,   148,   149   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   1860,
Section   3(1)(r)(s),   3(2)(5)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   the
Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989   and
Section   135   of   the   Gujarat   Police   Act,   1951.   It   is   submitted
that   the   manner   in   which   the   accused   had   beaten   the
deceased   –   Mukeshbhai   and   due   to   multiple   injuries   he
succumbed   to   death,   the   High   Court   while   releasing   the
accused   on   bail,   has   not   at   all   considered   the   gravity   of   the
offences   alleged   against   the   accused   and   on   the   grounds
5

which   are   not   tenable   the   High   Court   has   released   accused
on bail.  
5.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated
the fact that in fact the complainant and her aunt are the eye
witnesses.   It   is   submitted   that   even   the   entire   incident   was
recorded   in   mobile   as   well   as   by   CCTV.   Shri   Gonsalves,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant
has   taken   us   to   the   relevant  material   from   the   charge   sheet
as well as the photographs in which it is found that deceased
was tied by a rope to the gate and the accused were beating
the deceased.       
5.3 It   is   submitted   that   so   far   as   the   accused   Jaysukhbhai
Devrajbhai  Radadiya is concerned, it cannot  be said that  he
was just standing and there is no further overt act by him. It
is   submitted   that   as   such   he   was   the   person   who   not   only
beat the deceased but also he tied the deceased and ensured
that the deceased was not able to move.
5.4 It is submitted that the High Court has not at all considered
the   fact   that   all   the   accused   were   identified   in   the   Test
Identification Parade (TIP) by both the eye witnesses. 
6

5.5 It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the   post   mortem   report,   the
deceased   died   due   to   ante   mortem   injuries   caused   due   to
shock   and   haemorrhage   on   account   of   multiple   injuries
present over head and body caused by hard and blunt object.
5.6 It is submitted that in any case the High Court ought not to
have   brushed   aside   the   statements   of   eye   witnesses   at   this
stage.   It   is   therefore   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has
materially erred in releasing the accused on bail.         
6. Ms.   Aastha   Mehta,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   State   has   supported   the   appellant.   It   is   urged   that   the
High Court in the facts and circumstances ought not to have
released   the   accused   on   bail   in   respect   of   a   serious   offence
where one person has been killed brutally. When we asked a
pointed   question   to   the   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
State   why   in   such   a   serious   matter,   the   State   has   not
preferred appeal, she has fairly conceded that the State also
should   have   filed   the   appeal.   She   has   stated   that   may   be
because it takes time in taking decision to prefer appeal, the
State   in   the   present   case   might   not   have   yet   preferred   the
appeal   challenging   the   release   of   the   respondents   –   accused
on bail. 
7

7. Shri   Huzefa   Ahmadi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   accused   Tejas   Kanubhai   Zala,   has   submitted
that in the present case accused has been released on bail in
the month of February, 2019 and since then, he is on bail. It
is submitted that after the accused has been released on bail,
there are no allegations of misuse of liberty and therefore this
Court   may   not   cancel   the   bail   granted   by   the   High   Court
after two and a half years. 
7.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Ahmadi,   learned   Senior
Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that   even
thereafter   the   trial   has   further   proceeded   and   except   the
investigating officer (IO), most of the witnesses are examined
and therefore also the bail may not be cancelled. 
7.2 Shri Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   accused   –   Jaysukhbhai   Devrajbhai   Radadiya,
has   adopted   the submissions made by Shri Ahmadi, learned
Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   co­accused   –
Tejas   Kanubhai   Zala   and   has   requested   not   to   cancel   bail
after a period of two and a half years.      
8. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length. 
8

9. We   have   also   gone   through   and   considered   the   material   on
record.   We   have   also   gone   through   and   considered   the
impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing accused
on bail.
9.1 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   respective
accused   are   facing   charges   for   the   offences   under   Sections
302,   342,   354,   323,  143,   147,   148,   149   of  the   Indian   Penal
Code 1860, Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and   Section   135   of   the   Gujarat   Police   Act,   1951.   That   the
accused have been chargesheeted by the investigating officer
after a thorough investigation.
 
9.2 As per the case of the prosecution the accused tied deceased
to   the   gate   when   the   deceased,   complainant   and   her   aunt
were   collecting   scrap   outside   the   factory   premises.   The
accused have beaten the deceased when he was tied by pipe
and   belt.   He   sustained   serious   multiple   injuries   and   while
being   taken   to   hospital   he   succumbed   to   the   injuries   and
died. As per the post mortem report, the cause of the death of
the   deceased   –   victim   was   shock   and   haemorrhage   on
9

account   of   multiple   injuries   present   over   head   and   body,
caused by hard and blunt object.
 
9.3 The   appellant   herein   –   original   complainant   and   her   aunt
and   one   another   are   the   eye   witnesses   who   have   identified
the   accused   in   Test   Identification   Parade   (TIP).   The   entire
incident   has   been   captured/recorded   in   the   CCTV   footages
and the mobile phone. During the course of the investigation,
the   punchnama   of   the   place   of   the   incident   has   been
prepared,   statements   of   the   witnesses   are   recorded;   test
identification   of   the   accused   has   been   carried   out;   CCTV
footages   and   DVR   from   the   place   of   incident   have   been
recovered. Pipe and the belt used in commission of the crime
have   been   recovered.   It   can   be   seen   that   the   deceased   ­
Mukeshbhai was brutally beaten by the accused and despite
the   above   and   without   considering   the   seriousness   of   the
offences   alleged   and   despite   the   statements   of   the   eye
witnesses,   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned   orders   have
released   the   accused   on   bail   in   a   most   perfunctory   and
casual manner.  The High Court has not at all considered the
gravity   of   the   offences   alleged   and   the   evidence   collected
during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge
10

sheet. We refrain from making further observations on merits
as the trial is going on. Suffice it to say that in such a serious
matter   and   looking   to   the   gravity   of   the   offences   and
considering   the   statements   of   eye   witnesses   and   that   the
entire   incident   has   been   recorded   in   the   CCTV   footages   and
the   mobile   phone,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave
error in releasing  the respective respondents No.1 – accused
on bail. The judgments and orders passed by the High Court
releasing   the   accused   on   bail   are   unsustainable   both,   on
facts as well as on law.      
9.4 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that
after   the   accused   are   released   on   bail   by   the   impugned
judgments  and orders  passed by  the  High  Court, more than
two and a half years have passed and there are no allegations
of   misuse   of   liberty   and   therefore,   the   bail   may   not   be
cancelled is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. As
per   the   settled   preposition   of   law,   cancellation   of   bail   and
quashing   and   setting   aside   the   wrong   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   releasing   the   accused   on   bail   stand   on   different
footings. There are different considerations while considering
the   application   for   cancellation   of   bail   for   breach   of
11

conditions etc., and while considering an order passed by the
Court   releasing   the   accused   on   bail.   Once,   it   is   found   that
the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on
bail   is   unsustainable,   necessary   consequences   shall   have   to
follow and the bail has to be cancelled.    
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   both
these appeals succeed. The impugned judgments and orders
passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   the   accused   on   bail   in
connection  with First Information  Report being  C.R. No.I/38
of 2018 registered at Police Station, Shapar (Veraval) for the
offences   under   Sections   302,   114,   323   of   the   Indian   Penal
Code,   Section   135,   37(1)   of   the   Gujarat   Police   Act   and
Section   3(2)(5)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are hereby quashed and
set   aside.   As   the   accused   are   on   bail   we   direct   accused   ­
respondent   No.1   –   Tejas   Kanubhai   Zala   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.1655   of   2021   and   accused   ­   respondent   No.1   –
Jaysukhbhai   Devrajbhai   Radadiya   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.1656   of   2021,   to   surrender   before   the   concerned   jail
authority   within   a   period   of   one   week   from   today,   failing
which the non­bailable warrants be issued against them. The
12

present appeals are accordingly allowed.
11. Before  parting, we  may observe that by not filing the appeals
by   the   State   against   the   impugned   judgments   and   orders
releasing   the   accused   on   bail   in   such   a   serious   matter,   the
State has failed to protect the rights of the victim. We are of
the  opinion  that  this  was  the   fit  case  where  the  State  ought
to   have   preferred   the   appeals   challenging   the   orders   passed
by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal
matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the
State   which   is   the   custodian   of   the   social   interest   of   the
community   at   large   and   so   it   is   for   the   State   to   take   all   the
steps   necessary   for   bringing   the   person   who   has   acted
against the social interest of the community to book. 
It   is   reported   that   in   the   State   there   is   a   Director   of
Prosecution.   Even   the   Director   of   Prosecution   has   failed   to
perform his duties in the instant case. The post of Director of
Prosecution   is   a   very   important   post   in   so   far   as   the
administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It
is   the   duty   of   the   Director   of   Prosecution   to   take   prompt
decision.   Given   that   crimes   are   treated   as   a   wrong   against
the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution
13

in the administration of justice is crucial.  He is appointed by
the   State   Government   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Section
25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   That his is a crucial
role is evident from  conditions such  as in  Section  25A (2) of
the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not
less   than   ten   years   for   a   person   to   be   eligible   to   be
Directorate   of   Prosecution   and   that   such   an   appointment
shall   be   made   with   the   concurrence   of   the   Chief   Justice   of
the High Court. 
The   submissions   by   Ms.   Aastha   Mehta   learned   counsel
appearing   on  behalf  of  the State  that  it takes time to  take  a
decision whether to prefer an appeal or not is not acceptable.
The   State   ought   to   have   been   very   serious   even   to   maintain
the   rule   of   law   in   a   serious   matter   like   this   where   a   person
was   brutally   murdered/killed   while   he   was   just   collecting
scrap   outside   the   factory   with   his   wife   and   aunt.   It   is   the
duty   of   the   Director   of   Prosecution   and   the   State   to   ensure
that the guilty are booked and punished. 
We   hope   and   trust   that   in   future   the   State
Government/legal   department   of   State   Government   and   the
Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision in matters
14

such as this and challenge the order passed by the trial court
and/or the High Court as the case may be where it is found
that the accused are released on bail in serious offences like
the present. 
We   hope   and   trust   that   our   observations   will   reach   the
State   Government/legal   department   of   the   State   of   Gujarat
and the Director of Prosecution of State of Gujarat.  We direct
the   Registry   to   send   the   copy   of   this   order   to   the   Principal
Chief   Secretary   and   Secretary,   Home   Department   and   Legal
Department, State of Gujarat to take further corrective steps.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
January 10, 2022
15