9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - recording of statements u/s 161 of 1973 of the code - offence u/s 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT - There has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the Accused. The factors outlined in the case of MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA ANR. 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the Accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The Accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also, there are no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the Accused Malkhan Singh. The order of High Court is affirmed - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Grant of bail to Accused persons in a criminal case. 2. Validity of the High Court's orders granting bail. 3. Factors considered in granting bail. 4. Comparison with previous cases on bail orders. Issue 1: Grant of bail to Accused persons in a criminal case The appeals arose from two orders passed by the High Court granting bail to two Accused persons in a criminal case initiated based on a First Information Report. The Appellant, who is the son of the deceased victim, was assaulted by gunshots, leading to the arrests of the Accused persons. The Accused Vikram Singh was granted bail despite being named in the FIR and having a criminal history. The second Accused, Malkhan Singh, was also granted bail after being named in the FIR and witness statements regarding the incident. Issue 2: Validity of the High Court's orders granting bail The High Court granted bail to both Accused persons based on submissions that they were falsely implicated, lacked incriminating evidence, and had no criminal history. The Appellant argued against the bail, highlighting the involvement of the Accused in multiple criminal cases and witness statements linking them to the crime. The High Court's orders were challenged on the grounds of non-application of mind and lack of prima facie evidence justifying bail. Issue 3: Factors considered in granting bail The Supreme Court considered the seriousness of the offences, including Sections 302, 120-B/34, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the presence of pending criminal cases against the Accused. The Court also examined witness statements, such as that of Narendra Dev Upadhyay, linking the Accused to the crime. The Court emphasized the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail based on relevant materials and the absence of errors in the bail orders. Issue 4: Comparison with previous cases on bail orders The Court referred to previous judgments like Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh to discuss the scope of appellate jurisdiction in setting aside bail orders. It highlighted the need for a prima facie view of evidence and the absence of non-application of mind as grounds for interfering with bail orders. The Court found no improper exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the Accused persons in the present case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the High Court's orders granting bail to the Accused persons in the criminal case, emphasizing the importance of evidence, discretion, and legal precedents in such matters.
|
