2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - allegation of murder - heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation - non-speaking order - non-application of mind - non-framing of charges - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. In the instant case, while dealing with the application of the accused for grant of bail, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles. The accused, in the present case, is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim's house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder. Under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail under Section 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed. The bail bond and the surety furnished by the accused in terms of the impugned order stands cancelled and it is directed that he will be taken into custody forthwith - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a murder case.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order granting bail to the accused facing trial for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had granted bail to the accused based on the nature of the alleged crime, stating that further detention was not justified. The appeal contended that the order was non-speaking and should be set aside. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the accused was identified by a witness and the manner of the crime should be considered. On the other hand, the accused's counsel argued that the case was false, emphasizing the failure to identify the accused in the first Test Identification Parade (T.I.P). The Supreme Court noted that while interference with bail orders is not common, the High Court must exercise discretion judiciously. The Court outlined factors to consider for bail applications, including the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and likelihood of influencing witnesses.

The Court emphasized that if the High Court mechanically grants bail without considering relevant factors, the order would be illegal. Referring to previous judgments, the Court stressed the need for reasons to be provided when granting bail, especially in serious offence cases. In this instance, the High Court was criticized for overlooking crucial principles. The accused was alleged to have committed a heinous crime, and bail was granted even before charges were framed. The Court also pointed out that previous bail applications by the accused were rejected, a fact not addressed by the High Court. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the onus on the court to consider earlier rejections when evaluating subsequent bail applications.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, canceling the bail bond and directing the accused to be taken into custody. The Court clarified that observations made regarding the case were solely for bail consideration and should not influence any future bail applications.