[Honour-killing] Plea in Supreme Court to cancel bail of person accused in killing of Malayali man in front of pregnant wife from Rajasthan

A petition has been moved in the Supreme Court 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 (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 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..After hearing arguments in the matter on Friday, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana said that the Court would pass orders in the matter on Monday..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioner. Arguments were also made by the State and the accused man, both of whom have filed counters in the case. .Case background.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, who is alleged to have been involved in the plot to kill her husband. .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 the 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 However, the same was withdrawn after her parents apologized and assured Mamta that they would not repeat such conduct in the future. .The threats, however, continued, Mamta said. Her family is stated to have threatened her for ruining their honor and reputation by marrying out of caste. On one occasion, Mamta's parents are also alleged to have forcefully made her abort a pregnancy..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. .The parents are stated to have then attempted to drag Mamta out of the house by her hair, when neighbors intervened on hearing the commotion. .Realizing that they would get caught, her parents and the others allegedly fled from the scene. The neighbors are stated to have seen them make their escape in a Honda Amaze car. .Amit was declared dead at a hospital. .Submissions made by the parties.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. .In focus is the recovery of a Honda Amaze car, which was allegedly the getaway car spotted by Mamta's neighbours in 2017. .The State submitted that the car was recovered from Mukesh Chaudhary. Chaudhary has submitted that this is a matter for the trial court to decide, adding that going by a Section 27, Indian Evidence Act statement, the car was recovered at the instance of his father, Jeevan Ram Chaudhary. .Mukesh Chaudhary added that no illegal act has been committed by him after he was granted bail. If the bail is cancelled, it would amount to an interference with his liberty, Chaudhary said in his counter affidavit. Further, it was stated that the only allegation against him was that he had earlier threatened his sister. .There is no material to incriminate him in the case, he submitted. In this regard, it is also pointed out that he was in office, 170 kilometers away from the scene of the incident when it took place. Moreover, since 21 of 47 witnesses, including star witnesses, have been examined and since evidence has already been given, there is no chance of evidence tampering, he contended..The State, on the other hand, supported the plea for cancelling bail, contending that the High Court failed to consider the heinous nature of the alleged offence in granting Chaudhary relief.