{"id":232660,"date":"2005-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-12T17:11:16","modified_gmt":"2015-06-12T11:41:16","slug":"state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: Bhan<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1248 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nState through C.B.I.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAmaramani Tripathi\t\t\t                        \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan & R.V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL) NO.3503 OF 2004)
\nWith
\nCriminal APPEAL NO.1249\/2005
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.769 OF 2005)<\/p>\n
State of U.P. through C.B.I.\t\t\t\t…\n<\/p>\n
Appellant
\n\t\t\tVs.\n<\/p>\n
Madhumani Tripathi\t\t\t                 ... \nRespondent\n\n\nBHAN, J. \n\n\tLeave granted.\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI
\naggrieved by the orders dated 29th April, 2004 and
\n8th July, 2004 passed by a Single Judge of Allahabad
\nHigh Court (Lucknow Bench) in Crl. Misc. Case
\nNo.1402(B)\/2004 and  No.1954(B)\/2004 releasing the
\naccused Amarmani Tripathi (Accused No.5) and
\nMadhumani Tripathi (Accused No.4) on bail have
\nfiled these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 9th May, 2003 Madhumita Shukla was shot dead
\nin her house located in Paper Mill Colony by two
\npersons who were later on identified as Santosh
\nKumar Rai and Prakash Chandra Pandey.
\nInvestigation in the case revealed that Madhumita
\nShukla was killed pursuant to a conspiracy
\ninvolving Amarmani Tripathi and his wife Smt.
\nMadhumani Tripathi, Nidhi Shukla lodged a Report in
\nregard to the blind murder of her sister Madhumita
\nShukla on 9.5.2003 in the Mahanagar Police Station,
\nLucknow.  The case was transferred to Crime Branch,
\nCID on 17.5.2003.  On a request made by the State
\non  17.6.2003, the CBI took over the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
The case of the prosecution in brief is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
Amarmani Tripathi, a Minister in the U.P.
\nGovernment, at the relevant time, was having an
\naffair with deceased Madhumita Shukla, a young
\nPoetess.  This led to Madhumita’s pregnancy thrice.
\nOn the first two occasions, the pregnancy was
\naborted at the instance of Amarmani.  On the third
\noccasion, inspite of pressure and persuasion by
\nAmarmani, Madhumita refused to abort the pregnancy.
\nThe post-mortem revealed a six month old foetus in
\nher womb.  D.N.A. test of the foetus established
\nthe paternity of Amarmani.\n<\/p>\n
Madhumani Tripathi, wife of Amarmani, was upset
\nwhen she learnt about the illicit intimacy between
\nAmarmani and the deceased.  She made several calls
\nto the deceased and her family members to threaten
\nand abuse them.  During the end of March, 2003
\nMadhumani Tripathi informed one Rohit Chaturvedi
\n(cousin of Amarmani)  that she was troubled by her
\nhusband’s relationship with Madhumita and requested
\nhim to help her to teach a ‘lesson’ to Madhumita.
\nRohit Chaturvedi, therefore, introduced one Santosh
\nRai as a person who can help her. Madhumani told
\nSantosh Rai that  Madhumita should be finished,
\nwhatever be the expense.\n<\/p>\n
On 14.4.2003 when Rohit Chaturvedi came to
\nLucknow, Madhumani asked him  to instruct Santosh
\nRai to do the work assigned to him without delay.
\nOn the same evening Rohit Chaturvedi informed
\nAmarmani that Bhabhi Madhumani wanted Madhumita to
\nbe eliminated.  Amarmani told Rohit that it may be
\ndone taking care to see that his name was not
\nlinked to the incident.  He also stated that being
\na Minister in the U.P. Govt., shall protect them.
\nAmarmani was no longer interested in Madhumita as
\nshe was becoming a nuisance and he had found other
\ninterests.  Amarmani felt that if Madhumita gave
\nbirth to the love-child, it could adversely affect
\nhis image as a politician and Minister and also
\ncause problem in his family.\n<\/p>\n
Madhumani kept on pressing Rohit  to get the
\nwork done.  On 1.5.2003 Madhumani told him that all
\nlimits have been crossed and action should be taken
\nimmediately.  Madhumani rang up Rohit several times
\nto tell Santosh Rai to do her work and Rohit passed
\non the message to Satonsh Rai.  Santosh Rai met
\nMadhumani in this connection on 5.5.2003.
\nSantosh Rai assured Rohit that the work will be
\ndone within 2 to 4 days.   In pursuance of it, on
\n9.5.2003 Santosh Rai along with Prakash Pandey went
\nto the house of Madhumita and shot her with a
\ncountry made pistol (katta) from close range,
\nresulting in her death.\n<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution, the murder of
\nMadhumita was a result of the conspiracy among
\nMadhumani, Amarmani, Rohit Chaturvedi, Santosh Rai
\nand Prakash Pandey.  Amarmani was arrested on
\n23.9.2003.  On 19.12.2003 a charge-sheet was filed
\nagainst six accused, namely, (1) Santosh Kumar Rai
\n@ Satya Prakash, (2) Prakash Chander Pandey @
\nPappu, (3) Rohit Chaturvedi, (4) Madhumani
\nTripathi, (5) Amarmani Tripathi and (6) Yagya
\nNarain Dixit.  On the date of filing of the
\nchargesheet, accused no.4, Madhumani Tripathi,  was
\nabsconding. However, when the first bail
\napplication filed by Amarmani Tripathi was rejected
\nby the High Court by order dated 11.3.2004 on the
\nground that the co-accused (Madhumani Tripathi) had
\nnot surrendered, Madhumani surrendered on
\n25.3.2004.\n<\/p>\n
Amarmani made a second bail application under
\nSection 439 Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Case
\nNo.1402(B)\/2004.  The High Court by order dated
\n29.4.2004 granted bail to Amarmani on the following
\nreasoning:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThe entire theory of Amarmani being part of
\nthe conspiracy to murder Madhumita was based
\non the confessional statement of the co-
\naccused Rohit Chaturvedi (recorded on
\n17.11.2003 by Vikas Dhul, Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, at New Delhi). Rohit had made
\nhis confession conditional of being treated
\nas an approver.  Rohit had subsequently
\nretracted from the confession. The
\nadmissibility of the confession against a
\nco-accused is doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tNormally, Courts should first examine the
\nmaterial,  other than the confessional
\nstatement of a co-accused, to find out  if
\nthere is any evidence of
\nconspiracy\/abetment.  The confessional
\nstatement of a co-accused should be
\nconsidered only as a supporting piece of
\nevidence, and not as the substantive
\nevidence against an accused.  The
\nconfessional statement of a co-accused, more
\nso, one that has been retracted, cannot be
\nmade the foundation for establishing the
\nguilt of an accused.  In this case, if the
\nsaid confessional statement of Rohit is
\nexcluded, there is no evidence, direct or
\notherwise to show that Amarmani was in any
\nmanner,  party to the conspiracy to kill
\nMadhumita.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tThe other material relied on by the
\nprosecution against Amarmani are: (i)
\nillicit relationship between Amarmani and
\nthe deceased; (ii) DNA test report showing
\nthat Amarmani was the father of the foetus
\nin the womb of the deceased; (iii) pressure
\napplied by Amarmani on the deceased to abort
\nthe pregnancy; (iv) undated letter of the
\ndeceased addressed to Amarmani finding fault
\nwith him for ignoring her.  These were yet
\nto be tested in trial.  More importantly it
\ncannot be said that the only inference that
\ncan be drawn from the said material is that
\nAmarmani was a party to the conspiracy to
\nmurder the deceased.  These material can
\nonly lead to an inference that the conduct
\nof Amarmani was immoral and that there was
\nan effort on his part to cover up such
\nconduct and nothing more.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tThe criminal history of the accused Amarmani
\n(20 criminal cases ending in acquittal and 4
\ncases pending including a case of
\nkidnapping) cannot be a ground to refuse
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tThe contention of the CBI that the
\ninvestigation was still in progress in
\npursuance of the permission for further
\ninvestigation granted by the High Court by
\norder dated 8.4.2004 under Section 173(8) of
\nthe Cr.P.C. was not tenable as such further
\ninvestigation was only in regard to
\nMadhumani and not in regard to Amarmani.
\nCharge-sheet had already been submitted.
\nMadhumani was in jail and shall remain
\navailable for interrogation, if any, by CBI.\n<\/p>\n
f)\tAmarmani was in jail since September, 2003
\nThe investigation was already concluded.
\nThere was no chance of Amarmani either
\nfleeing, or tampering with the witnesses.
\nThere was nothing to connect the
\ndisappearance of the domestic servants of
\nAmarmani, with him, whom CBI wanted to
\ninterrogate.   If it was found at any stage
\nthat he was not co-operating in the trial of
\nthe case or found to be tutoring\/maneuvering
\nany witness, CBI can move an application for
\ncancellation of bail at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
Amarmani’s wife Madhumani applied to the
\nSessions Judge, Lucknow for bail in Crl. Misc.
\nCase N.960\/2004.  It was rejected by order dated
\n20.4.2004.  Thereafter she approached the High
\nCourt for bail in Crl. Misc. Case No.1954(B) of
\n2004.  The High Court granted bail to Madhumani
\nby order dated 8.7.2004 on the following
\nreasoning:\n<\/p>\n
a) Madhumani is not the main accused, but only an
\nalleged    conspirator\/abettor.  Her husband,
\nwhom the Prosecution considers to be the main
\nconspirator had already been granted bail and
\ngrounds on which he was granted bail are also
\navailable for granting bail to her.\n<\/p>\n
b) Madhumani is only a housewife without any
\ncriminal antecedents.  She has not been named
\nin the FIR or in the statements of Nidhi Shukla
\nand Desraj (servant of the deceased) recorded
\nunder Section 161 Cr.P.C.  Her name came to be
\nlinked with the murder for the first time in
\nthe confessional statement of Rohit made on
\n17.11.2003.  The admissibility of such
\nconfessional statement, particularly,  against
\na co-accused is doubtful and that question has
\nto be considered at the time of trial.\n<\/p>\n
c) \tThere is no allegation that Madhumani made
\nany attempt to tamper with the evidence.  She
\nwas available for interrogation on 4.8.2003 and
\n6.9.2003. When she moved an application on
\n24.9.2003 for surrender, the special Judicial
\nMagistrate, CBI by order dated 6.10.2003,
\nrejected the application for surrender  on the
\nground that she was not wanted till that date.
\nAll circumstances show that Madhumani was
\navailable from the date of incident till
\n6.10.2003.  Though she was said to be
\nabsconding after her name cropped up in the
\nconspiracy, she subsequently surrendered before
\nCourt when the first application of Amarmani
\nfor bail was rejected on the ground that she
\nwas absconding.  There is no chance of her
\nfleeing.\n<\/p>\n
d) The entire material against her regarding
\nintimacy between her husband and the deceased
\nand subsequent developments is purely based on
\ncircumstances and the  evidence indicated only
\na possible motive.  The mobile phone calls
\nattributed to her and printouts relating
\nthereto are not sufficient to infer any
\nconspiracy, as the Mobile phones used were not
\nin her name, but in the name of her husband.
\nThe Parchi allegedly handed over by her to the
\nhired killers (containing the name, address and
\ntelephone numbers of the deceased)  is yet to
\nbe proved as being in her handwriting.\n<\/p>\n
e) The prosecution case is based on two
\ncontradictory theories of conspiracy, one
\nhatched by her husband, the other hatched by
\nher, by joining hands with her husband.\n<\/p>\n
f)  The sessions court committed an error in
\nrejecting her bail application being influenced
\nby the fact that it is a media highlighted case
\nand by the fact that her husband is an
\ninfluential person.\n<\/p>\n
Being aggrieved by the two orders of the
\nAllahabad High Court granting bail to Amarmani
\nand Madhumani, the State has approached this
\nCourt. Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional
\nSolicitor General appearing for the petitioner,
\nsubmitted that the material on record, before the
\nHigh Court clearly disclosed the following
\nposition:\n<\/p>\n
i)\tThat the murder of pregnant Madhumita, a
\nheinous crime, was committed in pursuance of
\na conspiracy hatched by accused 1 to 5.  The
\nmurder was committed by the  killers
\n(accused 1 & 2), hired by accused no.4 with
\nthe concurrence, support and protection of
\naccused no.5, through accused no.3.  There
\nwas  material to show  (i) the illicit
\nrelationship of Amarmani with the deceased
\nresulting in three pregnancies; (ii)
\nAmarmani’s intention to get out of the
\nrelationship; (iii) Amarmani’s attempt to
\nput an end to the last pregnancy also, by
\nrequiring his servant Pappu Chaudhary to
\npose as the father of the foetus and give
\nconsent for abortion; (iv) Madhumani’s ire
\nand jealously against the deceased and
\nexpression of an  intention to get rid of
\nher; (v) Madhumani’s subsequent action in
\nengaging killers (accused 1 and 2) through
\naccused No.3 to kill Madhumita; and (vi) the
\nconsent of Amarmani for Killing  Madhumita,
\nas instructed by his wife without involving
\nhis name and assuring protection to the
\npersons committing the murder.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThat Amarmani was interfering with the
\ninvestigation, by trying to side-track it
\nand mislead the Police into a false trail,
\nplanting false stories in the media,
\ncreating false evidence and threatening
\nwitnesses either directly or by using the
\npolice.  He even managed to get the Police
\nOfficers (including an officer of the Rank
\nof SSP) who were not toeing his line,
\ntransferred.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tThat after release on bail in pursuance to
\nthe order of the High Court, Amarmani was
\nattempting to threaten\/coerce\/buy over
\nwitnesses (Nidhi Shukla, sister, Shanti
\nKumari Shukla and Najib Khan).\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThat Madhumani had already absconded
\nearlier.  Only the rejection of bail
\napplication of her husband on that ground
\nmade her to surrender.  There is every
\nlikelihood of her again fleeing, if she
\ncontinuous to be on bail.  Further, if
\nAmarmani alone is denied bail, the
\nthreatening of witnesses will be taken over
\nby Madhumani.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the other hand Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
\nSenior Counsel appearing for Amarmani submitted
\nthat this is a case of blind murder.  There is no
\nmaterial showing any involvement of Amarmani in
\nthe murder or in any conspiracy.  There was never
\nany contact between Amarmani and the hired
\nkillers.   He submitted that the retracted
\nconfessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi which
\nalone linked Amarmani’s name to the conspiracy is
\nto be ignored, in view of the law laid down by
\nthis Court; and if it is so ignored, there is
\nabsolutely no material at all to show that
\nAmarmani was involved in the conspiracy.  The,
\nmaterial, including the statements of  Nidhi,
\nShanti Kumari, Pappu Chaudhary relied upon by the
\nprosecution and the post-mortem report showing the
\nsix month foetus and the DNA report showing
\nAmarmani as the father, even if accepted could at
\nbest establish an illicit relationship between
\nAmarmani and Madhumita and an attempt to abort the
\npregnancy and nothing more.  He submitted that the
\nconduct of Amarmani, even if it was morally
\nincorrect, can in no way be considered as proof of
\nan intention to kill Madhumita or proof of his
\nbeing a party to any conspiracy to kill Madhumita.
\nHe also stated that any action taken by Amarmani
\nto safeguard himself and his wife, cannot be
\nbranded as conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
Shri KTS Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel
\nappearing for Madhumani similarly contended that
\nif the confessional statement of Rohit is
\nexcluded, there is nothing to link Madhumani to
\nthe death of Madhumita.  He pointed out that the
\nentire material, even assuming to be true, only
\nshowed an illicit relationship between Amarmani
\nand the deceased and expression of anger by
\nMadhumani against such illicit relationship and
\nnothing more.  He submits that the expression of
\nrighteous indignation by a wife and verbal abuse
\nof the girl trying to wreck her marital life, is
\nnot evidence of participation in any conspiracy to
\nkill the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Dwivedi and Shri Tulsi, learned Senior
\nCounsel  relied on several decisions regarding the
\neffect of confessional statements.  They contended
\nthat no interference was called for in regard to
\nthe orders of the High Court  granting bail to
\nAmarmani and Madhumani. They submitted that the
\nbasic rule is bail and not jail, unless there are
\ncircumstances suggesting fleeing from justice or
\nthwarting justice either by repeating the offence
\nor intimidating witnesses (vide State of Rajasthan
\nvs. Balchand<\/a> – 1977 (4) SCC 308 and Gudikanti
\nNarasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor<\/a>  1978 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
240).\n<\/p>\n
\tThey relied on the decision in Bihar Legal
\nSupport Society vs. Chief Justice of India<\/a> [1986 (4)
\nSCC 767] wherein a Constitution Bench of this Court
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The apex court must interfere only in
\nthe limited class of cases where there
\nis a substantial question of law
\ninvolved which needs to be finally laid
\nat rest by the apex court for the entire
\ncountry or where there is grave, blatant
\nand atrocious miscarriage of justice.
\nSometimes, we judges feel that when a
\ncase comes before us and we find that
\ninjustice has been done, how can we shut
\nour eyes to it.  But the answer to this
\nanguished query is that the judges of
\nthe apex court may not shut their eyes
\nto injustice but they  must equally not
\nkeep their eyes too wide open, otherwise
\nthe apex court would not be able to
\nperform the high and noble role which it
\nwas intended to perform according to the
\nfaith of the Constitution makers.  It is
\nfor this reason that the apex court has
\nevolved, as a matter of self-discipline,
\ncertain norms to guide it in the
\nexercise of its discretion in cases
\nwhere special leave petitions are filed
\nagainst orders granting or refusing bail
\nor anticipatory bail…… We reiterate
\nthis policy principle laid down by the
\nbench of this Court and hold that this
\nCourt should not ordinarily, save in
\nexceptional cases, interfere with orders
\ngranting or refusing bail or
\nanticipatory bail, because these are
\nmatters in which the High Court should
\nnormally be the final arbiter.”\n<\/p>\n
  \t\t\t\t\t     (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
Reliance is next placed on Dolat Ram and others
\nvs. State of Haryana<\/a> 1995 (1) SCC 349, wherein the
\ndistinction between the factors relevant for
\nrejecting bail in a non-bailable case and
\ncancellation of bail already granted, was brought
\nout :\n<\/p>\n
“Rejection of bail in a non-bailable
\ncase at the initial stage and the
\ncancellation of bail so granted, have
\nto be considered and dealt with on
\ndifferent basis.  Very cogent and
\noverwhelming circumstances are
\nnecessary for an order directing the
\ncancellation of the bail, already
\ngranted.  Generally speaking, the
\ngrounds for cancellation of bail,
\nbroadly (illustrative and not
\nexhaustive) are: interference or
\nattempt to interfere with the due
\ncourse of administration of justice or
\nevasion or attempt to evade the due
\ncourse of justice or abuse of the
\nconcession granted to the accused in
\nany manner.  The satisfaction of the
\ncourt, on the basis of material placed
\non the record of the possibility of the
\naccused absconding is yet another
\nreason justifying the cancellation of
\nbail.  However, bail once granted
\nshould not be cancelled in a mechanical
\nmanner without considering whether any
\nsupervening circumstances have rendered
\nit no longer conducive to a fair trial
\nto allow the accused to retain his
\nfreedom by enjoying the concession of
\nbail during the trial.”\n<\/p>\n
They also relied on the decision in S.N.
\nBhattacharjee vs. State of West  Bengal 2004 (11)
\nSCC 165 where the above principle is reiterated.
\nThe decisions in Dolat Ram and Bhattacharjee cases
\n(supra) relate to applications for cancellation of
\nbail and not appeals against orders granting bail.
\nIn an application for cancellation, conduct
\nsubsequent to release on bail and the supervening
\ncircumstances alone  are relevant.  But in an appeal
\nagainst grant of bail, all aspects that were
\nrelevant under Section 439 read with Section 437,
\ncontinue to be relevant.  We, however, agree that
\nwhile considering  and deciding appeals against
\ngrant of bail,  where the accused has been at large
\nfor a considerable time, the post bail conduct and
\nsupervening circumstances will also have to be taken
\nnote of.  But they are not the only factors to be
\nconsidered as in the case of applications for
\ncancellation of bail.\n<\/p>\n
It is well settled that the matters to be
\nconsidered in an application for bail are (i)
\nwhether there is any prima facie or reasonable
\nground to believe that the accused had committed
\nthe offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
\nconviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or
\nfleeing if  released on bail; (v) character,
\nbehaviour, means, position and standing of the
\naccused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being
\nrepeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the
\nwitnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger,
\nof course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
\nbail (see Prahlad  Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi<\/a> 2001
\n(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi
\nAdministration) AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 179).  While a vague
\nallegation that accused may tamper with the
\nevidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse
\nbail, if the accused is of such character that his
\nmere presence at large would intimidate the
\nwitnesses or if there is material to show that he
\nwill use his liberty to subvert justice  or tamper
\nwith the evidence, then bail will be refused.   We
\nmay also refer to the following principles relating
\nto grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan
\nChandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan,<\/a> 2004 (7) SCC 528:\n<\/p>\n
“The law in regard to grant or refusal
\nof  bail is very well settled. The
\ncourt granting bail should exercise
\nits discretion in a judicious manner
\nand not as a matter of course.  Though
\nat the stage of granting bail a
\ndetailed examination of evidence and
\nelaborate documentation of the merit
\nof the case need not be undertaken,
\nthere is a need to indicate in such
\norders reasons for prima facie
\nconcluding why bail was being granted
\nparticularly where the accused is
\ncharged of having committed a serious
\noffence.  Any order devoid of such
\nreasons would suffer from non-\n<\/p>\n
application of mind.  It is also
\nnecessary for the court granting bail
\nto consider among other circumstances,
\nthe following factors also before
\ngranting bail; they are:\n<\/p>\n
a.\tThe nature of accusation and the
\nseverity of punishment in case of
\nconviction and the nature of
\nsupporting evidence.\n<\/p>\n
b.\tReasonable apprehension of
\ntampering with the witness or
\napprehension of threat to the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
c.\tPrima facie satisfaction of the
\ncourt in support of the  charge.\n<\/p>\n
(see Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.
\nSudarshan Singh,<\/a> 2002 (3) SCC 598
\nand Puran vs. Ram Bilas 2001 (6)
\nSCC 338.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court also in specific terms held
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
“the condition laid down under
\nsection 437(1)(i) is sine qua non
\nfor granting bail even under
\nsection 439 of the Code.  In the
\nimpugned order it is noticed that
\nthe High Court  has given the
\nperiod of incarceration already
\nundergone by the accused and the
\nunlikelihood of trial concluding
\nin the near future as grounds
\nsufficient to enlarge the accused
\non bail, in spite of the fact that
\nthe accused stands charged of
\noffences punishable with life
\nimprisonment or even death
\npenalty.  In such cases, in our
\nopinion, the mere fact that the
\naccused has undergone certain
\nperiod of incarceration (three
\nyears in this case) by itself
\nwould not entitle the accused to
\nbeing enlarged on bail, nor the
\nfact that the trial is not likely
\nto be concluded in the near future
\neither by itself or coupled with
\nthe period of incarceration would
\nbe sufficient for enlarging the
\nappellant on bail when the gravity
\nof the offence alleged is severe
\nand there are allegations of
\ntampering with  the witnesses by
\nthe accused during the period he
\nwas on bail.”\n<\/p>\n
 In Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra,<\/a> 2005
\n(3) SCC 143, this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“The object underlying the
\ncancellation of bail is to protect
\nthe fair trial and secure justice
\nbeing done to the society by
\npreventing the accused who is set
\nat liberty by the bail order from
\ntampering with the evidence in the
\nheinous crime…..  It hardly
\nrequires to be stated that once a
\nperson is released on bail in
\nserious criminal cases where the
\npunishment is quite stringent and
\ndeterrent, the accused in order to
\nget away from  the clutches of the
\nsame indulge in various activities
\nlike tampering with the
\nprosecution witnesses, threatening
\nthe family members of the deceased
\nvictim and also create problems of
\nlaw and order situation.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, the general rule that this Court will
\nnot ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail,
\nis subject to exceptions where there are special
\ncircumstances and when the basic requirements for
\ngrant of bail are completely ignored by the High
\nCourt. (see Pawan vs. Ram Prakash Pandey<\/a>  2002 (9)
\nSCC 166; Ram Pratap Yadav vs. Mitra Sen Yadav<\/a>  2003
\n(1) SCC 15 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
\nRanjan<\/a>  2004 (7) SCC 528.\n<\/p>\n
While a detailed examination of the evidence is
\nto be avoided while considering the question of bail,
\nto ensure that there is no pre-judging and no
\nprejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about
\nthe existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is
\nnecessary.  An examination of the material in this
\ncase, set out above, keeping in view the aforesaid
\nprinciples, disclose prima facie, the existence of a
\nconspiracy to which Amarmani and Madhumani were
\nparties.  The contentions of Respondents that the
\nconfessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi is
\ninadmissible in evidence and that should be excluded
\nfrom consideration, for purpose of bail is untenable.
\nThis Court had negatived a somewhat similar
\ncontention, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) thus :\n<\/p>\n
“The next argument of learned
\ncounsel for the respondent is that
\nprima facie the prosecution has
\nfailed to produce any material to
\nimplicate the respondent in the
\ncrime of conspiracy.  In this regard
\nhe submitted that most of the
\nwitnesses have already turned
\nhostile.  The only other evidence
\navailable to the prosecution to
\nconnect the respondent with the
\ncrime is an alleged confession of
\nthe co-accused which according to
\nthe learned counsel was inadmissible
\nin evidence.  Therefore, he contends
\nthat the High Court was justified in
\ngranting bail since the prosecution
\nhas failed to establish even a prima
\nfacie case against the respondent.
\nFrom the High Court order we do not
\nfind this as a ground for granting
\nbail.  Be that as it may, we think
\nthat this argument is too premature
\nfor us to accept.  The admissibility
\nor otherwise of the confessional
\nstatement and the effect of the
\nevidence already adduced by the
\nprosecution and the merit of the
\nevidence that may be adduced
\nhereinafter including that of the
\nwitnesses sought to be recalled are
\nall matters to be considered at the
\nstage of the trial.”\n<\/p>\n
But what is more relevant, in this case is the
\nconduct of Amarmani from day of the murder in
\ntrying to interfere, detract and mislead the
\ninvestigation and to threaten and coerce
\nwitnesses.  We may refer to the following
\ncircumstances disclosed by statements recorded
\nunder Section  161 Cr.P.C. :\n<\/p>\n
i)\tNidhi Shukla and Shanti Kumari Shukla
\n(sister and mother of the deceased
\nrespectively) have stated that on
\n10.5.2003 Amarmani met them near the
\nmortuary and informed them that he will
\nhandle the entire situation and
\ninstructed them with threats, to be
\ncareful while making any statement and
\nnot to link him or his wife in regard to
\nthe murder.  This was repeated during the
\nsecond week of May 2003, by summoning the
\nmother of the deceased to his house.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe statement of Mr. Anil Aggarwal, SSP,
\nLucknow shows that on the intervening
\nnight of 9th and 10th May, 2003 (at about
\n1.00 a.m), Amarmani called him on his
\nmobile phone and made enquiries about the
\nmurder and informed him that he or his
\nwife had nothing to do with the murder
\nand that his wife was a very simple house
\nwife and that he (Anil Aggarwal) should
\nhelp him.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tWhen Anil Aggarwal learnt that there was
\nsix month old foetus in the womb of the
\ndeceased and that without removing the
\nfoetus, the body had been handed over to
\nthe relatives of the deceased, he
\nimmediately instructed that the body
\nshould be brought back and the Doctor
\nshould  remove the foetus and preserve it
\nfor purposes of investigation.  In
\npursuance of it, action was taken to stop
\nthe vehicle in which the body was being
\ntaken to the native place.  Amarmani
\nagain called the SSP (Anil Aggarwal) on
\nthe mobile phone and told him that he
\nknew Madhumita and that she was a simple
\ngirl.   That there was some mistake in
\nthe report that Madhumita was pregnant
\nand the body of Madhumita had already
\nstarted decomposing and the family should
\nbe permitted to proceed to their village
\nimmediately with the body so that funeral
\ncan be performed before sun set.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThat on 15.5.2003 Amarmani again
\ncontacted Anil Aggarwal, SSP on his
\nmobile phone and informed him that from
\nhis own sources and investigation he had
\nfound out that Madhumita was married to
\none Anuj Mishra, a student of IIT Kanpur,
\nand that he had located the Priest who
\nhad performed  the marriage in November-
\nDecember, 2002.    He also stated that if
\nthe marriage could be proved the
\naspersion cast on his character can be
\nremoved by showing that the deceased was
\npregnant on account of her marriage with
\nAnuj Mishra.  He instructed the SSP to
\nsend Yagya Narain Dixit, SO, Manek Nagar
\nto him, so that he would tell him what is
\nto be done to prove such marriage.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tOn the same day around 10 p.m. Amarmani
\nagain called Anil Aggarwal, SSP urging
\nhim to depute Yagya Narain Dixit, SO
\nManek Nagar (who was apparently close to
\nhim and was arrayed as the 6th accused
\nbeing charged under Section 201 of the
\nIPC.  He later on died in an accident) to
\nverify the marriage with Anuj Mishra.
\nAmarmani again called Anil Aggarwal on
\nthe morning of 16.5.2003 at around 10
\na.m. on the mobile and reiterated the
\ndemand. Again on the evening of 16.5.05
\nhe called the SSP on his mobile to
\nenquire about the progress and sounded
\nvery anxious and stated that the matter
\nwas getting delayed.  When the SSP asked
\nAmarmani to send the person who has given
\nthe information about the marriage of
\nMadhumita with Anuj Mishra to his office
\nso that he could send some police officer
\nto Kanpur to verify the matter and also
\ninformed Amarmani that he (SSP) will
\ndecide who should be deputed to verify
\nthe matter, the very next day (17.5.2003)
\nthe SSP was transferred, at the instance
\nof Amarmani.\n<\/p>\n
The statement of the SSP shows that
\nAmarmani tried to side track the matter
\nby implicating Anuj Mishra and to ensure
\nthat the foetus is not removed or
\npreserved or examined. When SSP refused
\nto comply, he was transferred.  Kamaal
\nKhan, NDTV correspondent\/Bureau Chief,
\nLucknow and Deepak Gidwani, Bureau Chief,
\nSahara Samay T.V. have clearly stated
\nthat Amarmani informed them that he had
\ncomplained to the Chief Minister that
\ninvestigation was not being done properly
\nand got Anil Aggarwal, SSP transferred;
\nand that he also informed them that his
\nprivate investigation showed that
\ndeceased had married Anuj Mishra.\n<\/p>\n
vi)\tAmarmani thereafter managed to ensure
\nthat his confidant Yagya Narain Dixit was
\ndeputed to threaten Rishi Khare, room
\nmate of Anuj Mishra, to admit that there
\nwas a marriage between Anuj Mishra and
\nMadhumita. The statement of Rishi Khare,
\nthe room mate of Anuj Misra at IIT
\nHostel, Kanpur showed that at the
\ninstance of Amarmani, Yagya Narain Dixit,
\nSO of Manek Nagar suggested, threatened
\nand coerced him to admit that he was a
\nwitness to the marriage of Madhumita with
\nAnuj Mishra in spite of his repeatedly
\nstating that he was not aware of any such
\nmarriage; and he even held out promises
\nto Rishi Khare on behalf of Amarmani
\nafter repeatedly speaking to Amarmani
\nTripathi over the phone in his presence.\n<\/p>\n
vii)\tThe statement of Rishi Khare shows that
\nhe and his father and his landlord were
\ntaken by Yagya Narain Dixit to meet
\nAmarmani, who demanded that he should
\nspeak about the wedding of Anuj Mishra
\nand deceased.  In his presence Amarmani
\nalso informed Yagya Narain Dixit that if
\nRishi Khare refused to admit of being a
\nwitness to such marriage he should use
\ntougher methods to make him admit the
\nwedding between Anuj Mishra and
\nMadhumita.  He also threatened Rishi
\nKhare that he can be framed by showing
\nthat a country made revolver was
\nrecovered from him, thereby landing him
\nin jail.\n<\/p>\n
viii)\tKamaal Khan, NDTV correspondent\/Bureau
\nChief, Lucknow and Deepak Gidwani, Bureau
\nChief, Sahara Samay T.V. were invited by
\nhim and told them that he had a major
\nscoope which would turn the entire story
\nof the Madhumita’s case upside down.
\nThat Madhumita’s case was not being
\ninvestigated properly and he was doing
\nhis own investigation.  That he has been
\nable to identify the real killers of
\nMadhumita.   Madhumita was married to
\nAnuj Mishra and the marriage was
\nperformed by a priest who was present in
\nthe house and was introduced to them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe evidence collected above discloses that
\nthere were repeated attempts by the accused Amarmani
\nto interfere, and side track the investigation and
\nthreaten the witnesses to come out with a story that
\nwill deflect the suspicion from him and his wife to
\nAnuj Mishra or others.  It is also not in dispute
\nthat Amarmani was on bail in a kidnapping case, when
\nhe indulged in these activities in May, 2003.  These
\nmaterials were placed by the prosecution before the
\nHigh Court to establish a reasonable apprehension of
\ntampering.  The learned Single Judge has, however,
\ncompletely ignored these materials relating to
\ntampering with evidence\/witnesses.  This
\nnecessitates interference with the order of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Subramanium, learned ASG next referred to
\nthe threats to witnesses held out by Amarmani
\nafter his release on bail.  Reliance is placed on
\nthe four complaints received by the crucial
\nprosecution witnesses.  Nidhi Shukla, sister of
\nthe deceased by letter dated 10.9.2004, and Shanti
\nKumari, mother of the deceased by an undated
\nletter, have made  separate complaints to the CBI
\nin regard to efforts made by Amarmani to induce
\nthem to accept money through one NK Mishra to
\nsettle the matter and that when they refused, he
\nthreatened them.  Another witness Najib Khan (a
\nfamily friend of the deceased) has also sent a
\ncomplaint dated 22.9.2004, stating that on that
\nday two persons knocked on his door, hurled abuses
\nat him and told him that the CBI officers were far
\naway and once the cases were closed, no one will
\nprotect him and he will be killed.  Lastly, one
\nBirjesh Pathak, Member of Parliament has also sent
\na complaint dated 16.9.2004 to the CBI alleging
\nthat an attempt on his life was made on 7.9.2004
\nwhich, according to him, was at the instance of
\nAmarmani.  The said allegations are denied in the
\ncounter-affidavit filed on behalf of Amarmani by
\nhis brother\/Pairokar.  It is contended that these
\ncomplaints must have been sent at the instance of
\nthe CBI itself.  In so far as Brijesh Pathak is
\nconcerned, it is also alleged that he is a close
\nconfidant of Amarmani’s political rival.  However,
\nin the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to
\nexamine this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has failed to deal with the vast
\nmaterial placed by the CBI which clearly indicated
\nthat the accused has, at all material times, tried
\nto interfere with the course of investigation,
\ntamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence,
\nintimidate or create obstacles in the path of
\ninvestigation officers and derail the case.\n<\/p>\n
The statement of Anil Aggarwal, SSP Lucknow is
\nrevealing and in our opinion the High Court on
\nthis statement alone should have rejected the bail
\nand, in any event, it is sufficient to allow the
\npresent appeal.  A senior police officer has
\nstated that the accused asked for his help against
\nhis implication in the case.  The accused asked
\nthe officer not to preserve the foetus and that
\nthe body should be taken to her native place for
\nthe last rites.  The officer also speaks about his
\nbeing rebuked by senior bureaucrats for recovering
\nthe foetus.  It is relevant to note that the
\nofficer was sought to be misled by the accused by
\ngiving false information about a marriage between
\nAnuj Mishra and the deceased.  But for his
\ndiligence, the foetus would not have been
\npreserved.  For doing his duty diligently, the
\nofficer was punished with a transfer out of normal
\ncourse.  The very fact that a senior police
\nofficer could be transferred out of Lucknow on 17th
\nof May, 2003, clearly shows the amount of
\ninfluence wielded by the accused. Ajay Kumar
\nChaturvedi, the first investigating officer who
\nhad also refused to tow the line of the accused
\nwas also transferred on the same date.  Likewise,
\nMr. Beni Singh Verma, Inspector of Police, CB-CID
\nand Mr. Dinanath Mishra , Inspector of Police, CB-
\nCID were also transferred.  S\/Sh.  N.V. Sirohi,
\nMr. Vishwa Bhushan Singh, Mr. Sahab Rashid Khan
\nwere also transferred but their transfer orders
\nwere quashed by the High Court later on.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Panchanan Mishra case (supra), it has been
\nheld that the Court must apply its mind and go
\ninto the merits and evidence on record and
\ndetermine whether prima facie case was established
\nagainst the accused.  It was held that the
\nseriousness and gravity of the crime was also a
\nrelevant consideration.  That a balance has to be
\ndrawn by the Court to protect fair trial and to
\nsecure justice being done to the society by
\npreventing the accused who is set at liberty by
\nthe bail order from tampering with the evidence in
\na heinous crime and if there is delay in such a
\ncase the underlying object of cancellation of bail
\npractically looses all its purpose and
\nsignificance to the great prejudice and the
\ninterest of the prosecution.  The Court summed up
\nthe principle that the ground to deny bail will be
\nwhen by testing the balance of probabilities it
\nappears that the accused has abused his liberty or
\nthat there is a reasonable apprehension that he
\nwill interfere with the course of justice.  It was
\nnoticed by the Court that once a person is
\nreleased on bail in serious criminal cases where
\nthe punishment is stringent and deterrent, the
\naccused in order to get away from the clutches of
\nthe same indulge in various activities like
\ntempering with the prosecution witnesses,
\nthreatening the family members of the victim and
\nalso create problems of law and order.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi, 2001 (4)
\nSCC 280, this Court reiterated that if a person
\nwas suspected of the crime of an offence
\npunishable with death or imprisonment for life
\nthen there must exist grounds which specifically
\nnegate the existence of reasonable ground for
\nbelieving that such an accused is guilty of an
\noffence punishable with the sentence of death or
\nimprisonment for life.  The jurisdiction to grant
\nbail must be exercised on the basis of well
\nsettled principles having regard to the
\ncircumstances of each case.  While granting bail,
\nthe Court has to keep in mind the nature of
\naccusations, the nature of evidence in support
\nthereof, the severity of the punishment which
\nconviction will entail, the character, behaviour,
\nmeans and standing of the accused, circumstances
\nwhich are peculiar to the accused and reasonable
\napprehension of witnesses being tempered with, <\/p>\n
In  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar case (supra), this
\nCourt reiterated that while granting bail
\ndiscretion must be exercised in a judicious manner
\nand not as a matter of course.  It may not be
\nnecessary to do detailed examination of evidence
\nand documentation of the merit of the case but
\nthere is a need to indicate reasons for prima
\nfacie conclusion why bail was being granted
\nparticularly where the accused is charged of
\nhaving committed serious offence.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, we find that the High
\nCourt has granted bail being of the opinion that
\nthe extra judicial confession given by Rohit
\nChaturvedi one of the co-accused may not stand the
\ntest of scrutiny by a judicial mind but that by
\nitself was not sufficient to grant the bail.
\nThere is voluminous evidence collected by the CBI
\nto show the involvement of Amarmani Tripathi, and
\nhis effort to interfere with the investigation of
\nthe case before the grant of bail and also after
\nthe grant of bail.  He tried to change the course
\nof investigation by creating false evidence of the
\nmarriage of Madhumita with Anuj Mishra with the
\nhelp of Yagya Narain Dixit, a police officer, the
\n6th accused who died in an accident during the
\ncourse of investigation.  There are written
\ncomplaints with the investigating agency showing
\nthat after his release on bail Amarmani Tripathi
\ntried to threaten as well as win over  Nidhi
\nShukla, sister of the deceased, and her mother by
\noffering bribe.  In our opinion, the High Court
\ngravely erred in granting bail to Amarmani
\nTripathi in such circumstances.  The High Court
\npractically failed to consider\/take into
\nconsideration the voluminous evidence which had
\nbeen collected by the investigation agency and
\nhave been referred to by them in their statement
\nof objections to the application for grant of
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that the position of Madhumani is
\nsomewhat different from the case of her husband.
\nWhile her husband is a politician and ex-Minister,
\nshe is no doubt a house wife. While her husband
\nhas several criminal cases against him, she has no
\nsuch record.  While there is material to show
\nattempts by her husband to tamper with the
\nevidence and threaten witnesses, there is nothing
\nto show that she made any attempt to tamper with
\nthe evidence.  But there is material to show that
\nshe had absconded for several months and
\nsurrendered only when bail was refused to her
\nhusband on the ground that she was absconding.
\nFurther when the matter is considered in entirety,
\nwith reference to the murder of Madhumita and the
\npropensity of the husband and wife to pressurize
\nand persuade others to act according to their
\nwishes there is reasonable ground for apprehension
\nthat if her husband alone is taken into custody,
\nleaving her to remain outside, she may take over
\nthe task of tampering the evidence and
\nmanipulating\/threatening witnesses.  Therefore,
\ninterference  is called for even in regard to the
\nbail granted to Madhumani.\n<\/p>\n
We are conscious of the fact that evidence in
\nthis case has yet not been led in the Court.
\nWherever we have referred to the word “evidence”
\nin this order the same may be read as material
\ncollected by the prosecution.  Reference to the
\nmaterial collected and the findings recorded
\nherein are for the purposes of these appeals only.
\nThis may not be taken as an expression of opinion.
\nThe Court would be at liberty to decide the matter
\nin the light of evidence which shall come on
\nrecord after it is led de hors any finding
\nrecorded in this order.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated above, the orders dated
\n29th April, 2004 and 8th July, 2004 passed by the
\nHigh Court are set aside.  The bail bonds of the
\nrespondents in each of these cases are cancelled.
\nRespondents are directed to surrender forthwith
\nand in case they fail to do so, the State should
\ntake effective steps to take the respondents in
\ncustody.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals stand disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 Author: Bhan Bench: Ashok Bhan, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1248 of 2005 PETITIONER: State through C.B.I. RESPONDENT: Amaramani Tripathi DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2005 BENCH: Ashok Bhan & R.V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":6964,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\",\"name\":\"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005"},"wordCount":6964,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005","name":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-12T11:41:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-through-c-b-i-vs-amaramani-tripathi-on-26-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Through C.B.I vs Amaramani Tripathi on 26 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}