9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 574 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - grant of Regular Bail - whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case? - HELD THAT - The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod 2021 (4) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT held that 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 Respondent No.2/Accused was arrested on 13.01.2021 subsequent to which he had applied for regular bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected on the ground that he is named in the FIR on the basis of the information provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been clarified after perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was shot by the Respondent No. 2/Accused himself. Being aggrieved by the same Respondent No.2/Accused filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking regular bail. Grant of bail to the Respondent No.2/Accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable. The High Court has not taken into consideration the criminal history of the Respondent No.2/Accused nature of crime material evidences available involvement of Respondent No.2/Accused in the said crime and recovery of weapon from his possession - the impugned order passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside. The bail bonds of Respondent No.2/Accused stand cancelled and he is hereby directed to surrender within one week from the date of passing of this order failing which the concerned police authorities shall take him into custody. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Respondent No. 2/Accused. 2. Principles governing the grant of bail. 3. Recording of reasons for granting bail by the High Court or Sessions Court. 4. Grounds and circumstances for cancellation of bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Respondent No. 2/Accused: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) appropriately in granting bail to Respondent No. 2/Accused. The High Court granted bail based on parity with a co-accused without adequately considering the role and criminal antecedents of Respondent No. 2. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to take into account relevant facts and circumstances, including the severity of the crime, the nature of the evidence, and the criminal history of the accused, rendering the bail order unsustainable. 2. Principles governing the grant of bail: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C, emphasizing that bail should be granted cautiously and judiciously. Factors to be considered include the nature of accusations, evidence in support, severity of punishment, character and behavior of the accused, likelihood of the accused absconding, and the potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court cited several precedents, including *Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi And Another* and *Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee And Another*, to underline these principles. 3. Recording of reasons for granting bail by the High Court or Sessions Court: The Supreme Court stressed the importance of assigning reasons for granting or denying bail, particularly in serious offenses. It noted that the High Court's order was cryptic and lacked specific reasons, which is against the principles of open justice. The Court cited *Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)* and *Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia And Another* to emphasize that recording reasons ensures judicial discretion is exercised judiciously and transparently. 4. Grounds and circumstances for cancellation of bail: The Supreme Court outlined the grounds for cancellation of bail, including interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of bail, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. It noted that bail can be canceled even in the absence of supervening circumstances if the initial grant was based on irrelevant or insufficient grounds. The Court cited *Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana* and *Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another* to support this view. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent No. 2/Accused without considering the relevant facts and circumstances. The bail order was set aside, and Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of bail and would not influence the trial court's final adjudication. Respondent No. 2 retains the right to apply for bail afresh if new circumstances arise. The appeal was allowed.
|
