2013 (9) TMI 1240 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Order passed by High court for cancelling bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge - Offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act - Parameters for granting bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - As is evincible, there has been no deliberation with regard to the requirements under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. The order read in entirety clearly reflects that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had an erroneous perception and fallacious understanding of the order passed by the High Court and it is clear as day that the regular bail was granted on the bedrock of the order passed by the High Court. He had absolutely misconstrued the order. Thus, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally unjustified and illegal. It is the duty of the superior courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law. We are of the convinced opinion that the observations made by the learned single Judge while dealing with second application u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure was not at all warranted under any circumstance as it was neither in consonance with the language employed in Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure nor in accord with the established principles of law relating to grant of anticipatory bail. We may reiterate that the said order has been interpreted by this Court as an order only issuing a direction to the accused to surrender, but as we find, it has really created colossal dilemma in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We are pained to say that passing of these kind of orders has become quite frequent and the sagacious saying, A stitch in time saves nine may be an apposite reminder now. We painfully part with the case by saying so. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the modification in the order passed by the learned single Judge and the observations made hereinabove.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.
2. Misinterpretation of the High Court's order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Parameters for granting bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail.

Summary:

1. Legality of the bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, and found that the bail was granted based on a misinterpretation of the High Court's order. The trial judge erroneously perceived the High Court's direction as a mandate to grant bail, which led to the bail order being declared "totally unjustified and illegal."

2. Misinterpretation of the High Court's order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge:
The learned Additional Sessions Judge misconstrued the High Court's order in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013, which merely directed the accused to surrender and apply for regular bail. The trial judge's order reflected a "fallacious understanding" and "erroneous perception" of the High Court's directive, leading to the wrongful grant of bail.

3. Parameters for granting bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court emphasized the judicial discretion involved in granting bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which must be exercised judiciously. Factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge must be considered. The trial judge failed to deliberate on these aspects, rendering the bail order "illegal and unjustified."

4. Supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail:
The High Court had also taken note of supervening circumstances, such as threats to the deceased's family, while canceling the bail. However, the Supreme Court opined that the grant of bail was already illegal and unjustified, and hence, the consideration of supervening circumstances was unnecessary. The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order to emphasize setting aside the bail order and allowing the accused to reapply for bail, to be considered on its own merits.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with a modification to the High Court's order, directing the accused to surrender and permitting a fresh application for bail to be considered on its merits, ensuring proper opportunity for the Public Prosecutor to present their stance. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established principles while granting bail.