2022 (1) TMI 1436 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Grant of bail by the High Court - Non reason order - Allegations against the Accused-Respondents - Offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') - Judicial reasoning and principles for granting bail - Appellant is the mother of the deceased Yameen - eyewitness to the attack on her sons - HELD THAT - While we are conscious of the fact that it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the Accused may not have been crystalised as such, an order de hors any reasoning whatsoever cannot result in grant of bail. If bail is granted in a casual manner, the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. As noted in Gurcharan Singh v. State 1977 (12) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT when bail has been granted to an Accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, if no new circumstances have cropped up since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima-facie case against the Accused. Thus, we do not think that these cases are fit cases for grant of bail to the Accused-Respondents, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against them as well as the aforesaid reasons. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders granting bail to the Accused-Respondents, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of proper judicial reasoning. The Accused-Respondents were directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks. The appeals were allowed, and the bail bonds of the Accused-Respondents were canceled.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's orders granting bail to the Accused-Respondents.
2. Consideration of material aspects by the High Court while granting bail.
3. Allegations and seriousness of the offences against the Accused-Respondents.
4. Conduct of the Accused-Respondents in evading arrest and its impact on the bail decision.

Summary:

1. Validity of the High Court's Orders Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court examined the appeals against the High Court's orders dated 7th October, 2020 and 17th November, 2020, which granted bail to the Accused-Respondents in Sardhana P.S. Crime Case No. 955 of 2018. The Appellant contended that the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction judiciously and granted bail without adequate reasoning, contrary to settled principles of law.

2. Consideration of Material Aspects by the High Court:
The Supreme Court highlighted that a court deciding a bail application must consider factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, evidence, possibility of tampering with evidence, and the criminal antecedents of the Accused. The High Court's orders were found to lack such considerations, making them cryptic and casual.

3. Allegations and Seriousness of the Offences Against the Accused-Respondents:
The Accused-Respondents were charged u/s 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Yameen and attempted murder of Mobin and Jamshed. The offences involved the use of deadly weapons and were of a grave and heinous nature.

4. Conduct of the Accused-Respondents in Evading Arrest:
The Accused-Respondents were absconding and resisted arrest for approximately three and a half months, violating multiple court orders. This conduct indicated a high likelihood of them absconding again if granted bail, which could delay the trial and adversely impact justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders granting bail were not justified due to the serious nature of the allegations, the Accused-Respondents' conduct, and the lack of proper reasoning in the bail orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the Accused-Respondents to surrender within two weeks.