Mere examination of the appellant herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance: Supreme Court

2. The instant appeal is assailing the order dated Fourth Bail Application No.13680 2020. The appellant of the husband of the appellant the appellant is aggrieved by the order impugned whereunder the 2017 dated 17.05.2017 registered in the Police Station Karni Vihar for the offence under Sections 302 452 and 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 in a mechanical manner through an order bereft of 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 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 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 Chaudhary on bail. The mother­in­law of the appellant This Court while taking note of the fact situation and before concluding that the bail is to be cancelled has “ The reading of the FIR and the charge sheet shows that prima facie there is liberty of bail to the respondent No. 2. In 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 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 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 as a change in circumstance for the High Court to High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur impugned herein is not sustainable. The same is No. 2 is cancelled. We therefore direct the respondent of Upper District and Sessions Judge Sr. No. 7 Jaipur consider the case being uninfluenced by any of the order has taken note that 17 witnesses out of 47 that at this point in time 21 witnesses have been examined and the trial is proceeding. Taking into dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible but in Pending applications if any shall stand disposed Page 

Summary: The High Court 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 concluding. A  three-judge bench comprising of The Chief Justice N V Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice Hrishikesh Roy adjudicating the matter of Mamta Nair v. State Of Rajasthan ( CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586  OF 2021) dealt with the issue of whether to allow the bail granted by the High Court or not. In the present case, the Appellant in pursuance of the order of bail passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench has preferred the present appeal. The Appellant is the sister of one of the Respondent and wife of the deceased. It was alleged that Respondent is the main conspirator of crime leading to the murder of the Appellant’s husband. On 17.05.2017 an FIR was lodged in the Police Station Karni Vihar for the offense under Sections 302, 452, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the mother-in-law of the appellant. According to the complaint filed by the appellant, the deceased was killed by his family members as an honor killing since they did not agree to the marriage between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the High court’s decision of granting bail to the family members. The contention of respondent No. 2 is that in an earlier instance this   Court had canceled the bail and thereafter the statement of witnesses has been recorded.   The counsel for 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 respondent   No.   2,   MukeshChaudhary 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 canceled has recorded as,” 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”