Case Title: Indresh Kumar V. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court noted that in the instance of a serious offence, remarks made according to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are significant when evaluating the initial evidence against an accused person.
In overturning an order of the Allahabad High Court that granted bail to a man accused of raping and killing an eleven-year-old girl, the bench made up of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian stated, "Ex facie, the allegations are grave, and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all."
The court noted that the High Court had disregarded the evidence, including witness testimony that violated Section 164/161 of the CrPC, when it was reviewing the State's appeal.
"Statements 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 an application for grant of bail in case of a grave offence", the Court said.
The court further pointed out that the bond was only given because a co-accused had already been granted bail, not because of the vile nature of the accusations against him, the seriousness of the alleged offence, or the severity of the sentence in the case of a conviction.
In granting bail to the accused, the High Court based its decision on the findings in Data Ram v. State of U.P. and others. This is what the bench noticed:
"The observations and directions in Dataram Singh (supra) were in the context of the arrest and long custodial detention in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for issuing cheques and then stopping payment of the cheque. Bail application had 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."
The bench noted when vacating the bail order:
"The offence alleged against the respondent accused of rape and cold-blooded murder of an eleven-year-old child is heinous and dastardly. The conduct of killing a child to avoid getting caught for the offence, inter alia, of rape and then burial of the child as also her stained clothes and other articles under the soil to cause the disappearance of evidence and evade apprehension for the offence of murder is indicative of a tendency to evade the process of law. It is possible that the respondent-accused might flee to evade the process of law."