2012 (3) TMI 522 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - Held that - The High Court ought to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction considering the nature and gravity of the offence and as the FIR had been lodged spontaneously, its veracity is reliable. The High Court has very lightly brushed aside the fact that FIR had been lodged spontaneously and further did not record any reason as how the pre-requisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provision itself stood fulfilled. Nor did the court consider as to whether custodial interrogation was required. The court may not exercise its discretion in derogation of established principles of law, rather it has to be in strict adherence to them. Discretion has to be guided by law; duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or vague. The court must not yield to spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence. The order dehors the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. itself suffers from nonapplication of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Consideration of the nature and gravity of the offense.
3. Evaluation of the antecedents of the accused.
4. The necessity of custodial interrogation.
5. Parameters for granting anticipatory bail.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

The appeals were filed against the judgments of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondents under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege and should be granted only in exceptional cases. The Court highlighted that the judicial discretion conferred upon the court must be properly exercised after a thorough application of mind.

2. Consideration of the nature and gravity of the offense:

The Supreme Court noted that the deceased had received multiple gunshot injuries, as detailed in the post-mortem report, indicating the severity of the crime. The FIR was lodged promptly within two hours of the incident, which provided assurance of the veracity of the informant's version. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the manner in which it was committed.

3. Evaluation of the antecedents of the accused:

The High Court granted anticipatory bail on the grounds that there was a previous dispute between the parties and the accused had fair antecedents. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient, emphasizing that the High Court did not apply the established parameters for granting anticipatory bail, nor did it consider the strong motive and material evidence against the accused.

4. The necessity of custodial interrogation:

The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court did not consider whether custodial interrogation of the accused was required. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted if custodial interrogation is necessary for a thorough investigation of the case.

5. Parameters for granting anticipatory bail:

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgments, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, which laid down factors and parameters for considering anticipatory bail applications. These include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the accused repeating similar offenses. The Court emphasized that the High Court did not apply these parameters and dealt with the matter in a casual and cavalier manner.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without considering the established legal principles and the gravity of the offense. The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court were set aside, and the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents was canceled. The Court clarified that if the respondents apply for regular bail, it should be considered in accordance with the law. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.

← Previous Next →