9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1405 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of bail - Murder - pre-existing rivalry between the Respondent-Accused his brothers namely Arjun Satyanarayn and Okramal and the deceased - HELD THAT - There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or by contrast in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the Accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the Accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the Accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the Accused. Ultimately the Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the Accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other. This is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against him. Strangely the State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the impugned order - the High Court was not right in allowing the application for bail filed by the Respondent-Accused. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused by the High Court. 2. Allegations against the Respondent-Accused under Section 302 IPC. 3. Previous enmity and political influence of the Respondent-Accused. 4. Delay in lodging the FIR. 5. High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail to the Respondent-Accused by the High Court: The High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan granted bail to the Respondent-Accused in connection with FIR No. 407/2019. The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court's order was cryptic and lacked coherent reasoning. The Supreme Court emphasized that while detailed reasons are not always necessary, the order must reflect that the material on record was considered. The High Court's failure to address the seriousness of the allegations and the potential influence of the Respondent-Accused led to the Supreme Court setting aside the bail order. 2. Allegations Against the Respondent-Accused Under Section 302 IPC: The Respondent-Accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased, Ram Swaroop Khokhar. The FIR stated that the Respondent-Accused attacked the deceased, pinned him to the ground, and strangled him, resulting in death by asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation. The Appellant, son of the deceased, lodged the FIR, citing a pre-existing rivalry and political enmity as motives. 3. Previous Enmity and Political Influence of the Respondent-Accused: The Appellant alleged that the Respondent-Accused had significant political influence in the village and had previously threatened the deceased. The Appellant contended that the Respondent-Accused's influence could lead to tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses if released on bail. The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns, highlighting the potential for the Respondent-Accused to interfere with the trial process. 4. Delay in Lodging the FIR: The Respondent-Accused's counsel argued that the delay in lodging the FIR indicated an afterthought and false implications. However, the Supreme Court noted that the delay was explained by the Appellant's difficulty in getting the FIR registered due to the Respondent-Accused's influence. The Court found that the delay did not undermine the credibility of the allegations. 5. High Court's Exercise of Discretion in Granting Bail: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must exercise discretion judiciously, considering the nature of the accusations, the severity of the punishment, and the potential for the accused to abscond or tamper with evidence. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, to underscore the importance of reasoned decisions in bail matters. The High Court's failure to provide adequate reasoning and consider material aspects led the Supreme Court to conclude that the bail order was not sustainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused, directing him to surrender within two weeks. The judgment underscores the necessity for courts to provide reasoned decisions and consider all relevant factors when granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.
|
