9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1419 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of bail granted - Murder - It is submitted that what is weighed with the High Court seems to be a parity as one other co-accused Shashi Bhushan Bhagat has been allowed bail - HELD THAT - From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it can be seen that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail. After recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State thereafter the High Court has only observed that considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner s counsel. Prayer for the bail of the petitioner is allowed. There is no further reasoning given at all. Neither the High Court has considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the recent decision in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VERSUS VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT . Emphasizing on giving brief reasons while granting bail, it is observed by this Court in the above case that though it is a well settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. It is further observed that however the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused. 2. Consideration of the gravity and nature of the offense. 3. Assessment of the accused's criminal antecedents. 4. Application of judicial discretion and reasoning in bail orders. 5. Impact of the accused's release on the prosecution witnesses and society. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Decision to Grant Bail to the Accused: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was made without assigning sufficient reasons. The High Court merely stated, "Considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed." This was deemed insufficient as per the legal standards set by the Supreme Court in previous cases like Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli). 2. Consideration of the Gravity and Nature of the Offense: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the gravity, nature, and seriousness of the offenses alleged against the accused. The accused was involved in a heinous crime where one person was killed, and the High Court did not address these aspects adequately. The Supreme Court reiterated that while granting bail, the gravity and seriousness of the offense must be considered, as highlighted in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). 3. Assessment of the Accused's Criminal Antecedents: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused, who had a history of involvement in serious crimes, including a double murder case. The accused had previously been involved in the murder of the informant's father and younger brother. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not considering these antecedents and the potential threat the accused posed to the informant and witnesses. 4. Application of Judicial Discretion and Reasoning in Bail Orders: The Supreme Court underscored the necessity for judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously and not whimsically. The High Court's order lacked the required reasoning and did not meet the standards of judicial discipline. The Supreme Court stressed that reasons must be recorded in bail orders to ensure transparency and accountability, as emphasized in the cases of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr. 5. Impact of the Accused's Release on the Prosecution Witnesses and Society: The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court did not consider the impact of the accused's release on the prosecution witnesses and society. There were allegations that the accused was pressurizing the informant and witnesses, which the High Court failed to address. The Supreme Court pointed out that such considerations are crucial in bail decisions to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of witnesses. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused, directing the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority or court forthwith. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning and consideration of all relevant factors in bail decisions.
|
