2021 (12) TMI 1500 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of High Court's order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused - Offence of murder u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act - Consideration of criminal antecedents and the nature of the accusations - Adequacy of reasons provided by the High Court for granting bail - violation of principles of natural justice - Appellant is the mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the killing of her son - HELD THAT - While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an Accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the Accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-vise the offence/s alleged against an 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. Thus, while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. It would be only a non speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. Having considered the facts of the present case , we do not think that these cases are fit cases for grant of bail to Respondent-Accused in respect of the two serious accusations against him vis- -vis the very same person namely deceased Rupesh Kumar. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail, emphasizing the need for a judicious exercise of discretion and adequate reasoning in bail decisions. The Respondent-Accused was directed to surrender within two weeks. The appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused by the High Court.
2. Allegations and criminal antecedents of the Respondent-Accused.
3. Reasoning provided by the High Court for granting bail.
4. Legal principles for granting bail.

Summary:

1. Grant of Bail to the Respondent-Accused by the High Court:
The appeals were filed by the informant-Appellant challenging the High Court's orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021, which granted bail to the Respondent-Accused in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 316 of 2017 respectively.

2. Allegations and Criminal Antecedents of the Respondent-Accused:
The Respondent-Accused was alleged to have committed serious offences, including the murder of the Appellant's son Rupesh Kumar u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and an attempt to murder in 2017 u/s 341, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Respondent-Accused had absconded for seven months after the 2020 incident and had threatened the Appellant and her family. The Respondent-Accused had a history of criminal antecedents with multiple cases pending against him.

3. Reasoning Provided by the High Court for Granting Bail:
The High Court granted bail to the Respondent-Accused based on the reasoning that he was in custody for a significant period and that false implication could not be ruled out. The High Court's orders were criticized for being cryptic and lacking detailed reasoning.

4. Legal Principles for Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court referred to several judgments outlining the principles for granting bail, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise discretion judiciously. Factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the criminal antecedents of the accused were highlighted. The Court noted that while detailed reasons are not necessary, the absence of any reasoning or a non-speaking order violates principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not considered vital aspects of the case and had granted bail in a very cryptic manner. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders granting bail were set aside. The Respondent-Accused was directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks.