IN CONSIDERING PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST ACCUSED IN HIS BAIL APPLICATION, STATEMENTS MADE U/SEC 161 CRPC ARE RELEVANT: SC

The Supreme Court in the case Indresh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh observed and stated that statements made under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in case of grave offence in an application for grant of bail.

The bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and the Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed and stated that the Ex-facie, the allegations are grave, and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all, while setting aside the Allahabad High Court order that granted bail to a man accused of rape and murder of eleven-year-old girl.

In the present case, an appeal was filled by the State and it was noted by the bench that the High Court has ignored the materials on record including incriminating statements of witnesses under Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court said that the statements made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in case of grave offence in an application for grant of bail.

It was also noted by the court noted that the bail was granted without considering the heinous nature of the allegations against him, the gravity of the offence alleged and severity of the punishment in the event of ultimate conviction and only because a co-accused had also been granted bail.

Further, the High Court had relied on observations made in the case Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 to the accused for grant of bail.

the bench observed that the observations and directions in Dataram Singh (supra) were in the context of arrest and long custodial detention in a crime case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for issuing cheques and then stopping payment of the cheque. However, the bail application has been rejected first by the Trial Court and then by the High Court even after about five months of detention of the accused in custody.

It was observed by the bench while setting aside the order that the offence alleged against the respondent-accused of rape and cold-blooded murder of an eleven-year-old child is heinous and dastardly. However, the conduct of killing a child to avoid getting caught of the offence, inter alia, of rape and then burial of the child as also other articles and her stained clothes under the soil to cause disappearance of evidence and evade apprehension for the offence of murder is indicative of a tendency to evade the process of law and to evade the process of law, it is possible that the respondent-accused might flee.