2004 (7) TMI 698 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail application u/s 439 of CrPC - cruelty and murder - Offence punishable u/s 498-A, 307, 302 u/s 34 of IPC - whether or not filing of the chargesheet is a substantive change necessitating Courts to decide the application seeking bail, filed after the chargesheet - HELD THAT - Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., an accused gets documents relied upon by the prosecution as of right. He is thus better equipped to address the Court and invite the Court to examine the evidence after filing of the chargesheet from his point of view and to point out lacunas, if any, in the investigation, which could be fatal to the prosecution or sufficient enough to convince the Court that there exists reasonable grounds for, prima facie, believing that the applicant has not been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Until filing of the chargesheet one of the important fact that weigh on the mind of a Judge is the continuity of investigation and whether the investigation will be hampered if the accused is set at large. However, after filing of the chargesheet, this approach changes and the Court, apart from merits of the case, requires to consider whether the accused should be continued in custody even after the investigation is over. This change, in the approach of the Court after filing of the chargesheet towards evaluating the need of keeping the accused in custody, should be termed as substantial change. It is open for the Court to take similar view which was taken while rejecting earlier application for bail made before filing of the chargesheet. However, in my opinion, it is not open for the Court to hold that filing of the chargesheet is not a substantive change of circumstance and refuse to enter into merits of the case. The Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant or his advocate to argue an application for bail on the basis of documents supplied to the accused with the chargesheet as required u/s 207 of CrPC. Ultimately, the Court directed the Addl. Sessions Judge to reconsider the bail application, allowing the applicant's advocate to argue based on the chargesheet and documents supplied, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration of the case on its merits post-chargesheet filing. The previous order rejecting bail after chargesheet filing was rendered ineffective, highlighting the importance of evaluating the need for continued custody post-investigation completion.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. based on rejection by Sessions Court due to filing of chargesheet and refusal to consider merits of the case.

Summary:
The applicants, real brothers, sought bail in a case involving Sections 498-A, 307, 302 u/s 34 of IPC after being accused of subjecting the wife of one applicant to cruelty and murder. Despite previous bail rejections, a second application post chargesheet was opposed by the State, citing lack of substantial change in circumstance. The Court considered the issue of whether filing a chargesheet constitutes a substantive change necessitating a fresh bail decision on merits, emphasizing the need to evaluate the accused's custody post-investigation completion.

In analyzing the legal precedent, the Court distinguished the concept of substantial change in circumstance from cosmetic changes, highlighting the discretion of the Sessions Judge or High Court u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail based on substantial changes and exercise of judicious discretion. The Court emphasized the accused's right to documents relied upon by the prosecution, enabling them to address the Court effectively post-chargesheet filing and point out any investigation lacunas.

Ultimately, the Court directed the Addl. Sessions Judge to reconsider the bail application, allowing the applicant's advocate to argue based on the chargesheet and documents supplied, emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration of the case on its merits post-chargesheet filing. The previous order rejecting bail after chargesheet filing was rendered ineffective, highlighting the importance of evaluating the need for continued custody post-investigation completion.