9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1276 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - homicidal deaths - Applicability of principles of parity - recovery of two country made guns, two indigenous counterfeit guns, four dhariyas and one wooden stick, from the scene of offence - it is alleged that Accused had produced fake documents for the purpose of obtaining bail - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - HELD THAT - The incident which took place on 9 May 2020 resulted in five homicidal deaths. The nature of the offence is a circumstance which has an important bearing on the grant of bail. The orders of the High Court are conspicuous in the absence of any awareness or elaboration of the serious nature of the offence. The perversity lies in the failure of the High Court to consider an important circumstance which has a bearing on whether bail should be granted. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In NEERU YADAV VERSUS STATE OF U.P. 2014 (12) TMI 1347 - SUPREME COURT , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. Principle of parity - HELD THAT - Parity while granting bail must focus upon role of the Accused. Merely observing that another Accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the Accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. There has been a manifest failure of the High Court to advert to material circumstances, especially the narration of the incident as it appears in the cross FIR which was lodged on 13 May 2020. Above all, the High Court has completely ignored the gravity and seriousness of the offence which resulted in five homicidal deaths. This is clearly a case where the orders passed by the High Court suffered from a clear perversity. Grant of bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution-is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice - This Court in CHAMAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2004 (8) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURT in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind. The orders granting bail to the Respondent-Accused Vishan Heera Koli (A-6), Pravin Heera Koli (A-10), Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13), Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15), Vanraj Karshan Koli (A-16) and Dinesh Karshan Akhiyani (Koli) (A-17) suffer from a clear perversity - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Nature and gravity of the offence. 3. Application of the principle of parity in granting bail. 4. Judicial reasoning and application of mind in bail orders. 5. Criminal antecedents of the accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The appeals challenged the orders of the High Court of Gujarat granting bail to six accused implicated in five homicidal deaths. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court had judiciously exercised its discretion under Section 439 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the grant of bail involves the exercise of judicial discretion, which must be reasoned and not arbitrary. 2. Nature and Gravity of the Offence: The Supreme Court noted the serious nature of the crime, which involved five homicidal deaths resulting from a land dispute. The Court observed that the High Court's orders lacked any discussion on the gravity of the offence. The Court cited the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan Singh, emphasizing that the nature of the crime is a crucial factor in bail considerations. 3. Application of the Principle of Parity in Granting Bail: The High Court granted bail to some accused based on parity with others who had been granted bail earlier. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that parity must focus on the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused was granted bail for wielding a similar weapon is insufficient. The Court held that the High Court misunderstood the principle of parity, which requires considering the individual role, position in relation to the incident, and the victims. 4. Judicial Reasoning and Application of Mind in Bail Orders: The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's practice of recording that counsel for the parties "do not press for a further reasoned order." The Court stressed that the grant of bail implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the state, and the victims of crime. The Court held that judicial orders must indicate reasons, even if brief, to ensure that discretion is exercised judiciously. The absence of reasoning in the High Court's orders rendered them perverse and unjustified. 5. Criminal Antecedents of the Accused: The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court failed to consider the criminal antecedents of some accused, particularly Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13), who had previous FIRs registered against him. The Court referenced Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, which held that criminal antecedents must be weighed in bail considerations. The High Court's oversight in this regard further contributed to the orders' perversity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders granting bail suffered from clear perversity due to the failure to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, improper application of the principle of parity, lack of judicial reasoning, and ignoring the criminal antecedents of the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail and directed the accused to surrender forthwith.
|
