[Honour Killing] Supreme Court cancels bail of person accused in killing of Malayali brother-in-law in front of his pregnant wife from Rajasthan

The Supreme Court on Monday cancelled the bail of man accused of conspiring to murder his brother-in-law, who was shot point-blank in front of his pregnant wife by a hired gun in an alleged case of honour killing (Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan and anr)..The deceased, Amit Nair from Kerala was allegedly shot in front of his pregnant wife from Rajasthan over their intercaste marriage..The order was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy on a plea challenging the grant of bail to a man accused of conspiring to murder his brother-in-law, who was eventually shot point-blank in front of his pregnant wife by a hired gun in an alleged case of honour killing.The Rajasthan High Court had earlier granted him bail against which the present appeal was filed. "We are of the view that the order passed by the High Court should be set aside. We direct the respondent to surrender before the district judge. We are of the considered view, the bail granted to respondent number 3 is not sustainable. Trial should be expedited within one year," the Court ordered. .The accused, Mukesh Chaudhary, is facing trial for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) and 120B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code..[Honour-killing] Plea in Supreme Court to cancel bail of person accused in killing of Malayali man in front of pregnant wife from Rajasthan.The petition was moved by Amit Nair's wife, Mamta Nair, challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to allow her brother's release on bail last December. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioner. The incident took place in 2017, when Mamta's parents, and two other men are stated to have barged into the couple's home and shot Amit before attempting to drag Mamta back to her parents' house. Mamta was six months pregnant at the time..As per the petition, neighbours intervened before Mamta could be taken away, after hearing alarm raised by Mamta and her niece..The Court was informed that Mamta had married Amit in 2011. At the time, her parents were not informed since it was an inter-caste marriage. In 2015, she told her parents, at which point her parents allegedly said that they are not ready to bear such a societal blot.Her family is also stated to have made her renounce all rights to her family's property and to declare that she will have no further relations with the family. Mamta and Amit thereafter remarried each other in 2015, according to rituals followed in Kerala.The same year, she was also constrained to file a police complaint over threats faced from her family. However, the same was withdrawn after her parents apologized and assured Mamta that they would not repeat such conduct in the future.On May 17, 2017, Amit was shot dead. As per the petitioner, her parents and two others came to the couple's residence and pressurised her to go to her parental house.On Mamta's refusal, a man allegedly hired by her parents pulled out a country-made pistol and shot Amit in the face at point blank range, resulting in his death..Mamta asserted that the plot to kill her husband was hatched by her parents and her brother along with other co-conspirators hired to carry out the act.It was pointed out that bail applications moved by her brother, Mukesh Choudhary, were earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court itself, one being dismissed as withdrawn. In 2019, the Rajasthan High Court had also denied him bail, it was submitted.After the Rajasthan High Court allowed bail in December 2020, Choudhary tried to intimidate Mamta, directly and indirectly through relatives and others, Mamta alleged..Worried for her safety and the safety of her minor three-year-old child, she moved the top Court to intervene in the matter. In this regard, it was also pointed out that Mamta has filed six complaints between 2017 and 2019 seeking police protection after she received threats from her family after the trial in this case commenced.In her plea, she argued that the High Court ignored the substantial evidence obtained in the case while granting Chaudhary bail. Further, the High Court failed to consider the fear and terror being experienced by Mamta about her safety, and the safety of her child and mother-in-law..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.