2021 (4) TMI 1382 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - High Court granted bail without proper reasoning and non application of mind - Dowry Death - HELD THAT - The High Court cannot be oblivious, in a case such as the present, of the seriousness of the alleged offence, where a woman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. The seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassed for dowry; and that a telephone call was received from the Accused in close-proximity to the time of death, making a demand. There are specific allegations of harassment against the Accused on the ground of dowry. An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. These observations are made because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. The High Court granting bail without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law requires the interference of this Court - the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 1 December 2020 granting bail to the first Respondent set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Grant of bail by the High Court without adequate reasoning and application of mind.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment dealt with an appeal arising from a High Court judgment granting bail to the first Respondent in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment and death of the deceased within a year of marriage. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 498A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court granted bail without providing detailed reasons, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Appellant contended that the deceased was not suffering from a mental illness, and the bail was unjustified considering the serious allegations and legal presumptions under Section 304-B and Evidence Act Sections 113-A and 113-B.

The first Respondent's counsel argued that the High Court's decision was appropriate as it did not express any opinion on the case's merits, and there was no complicity of the first Respondent in the alleged offenses. The State of Uttar Pradesh highlighted discrepancies in the case presented by the first Respondent, indicating an attempt to improve the case during proceedings. The Supreme Court noted the seriousness of the allegations, including dowry harassment and a demand for money close to the deceased's death. The medical prescription submitted did not support claims of severe illness, raising doubts about the deceased's condition.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's lack of reasoning in granting bail, emphasizing the importance of justifying serious cases like murder with proper reasons. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing the necessity of reasoned bail orders, especially in grave offenses. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's bail order lacked adequate application of mind and reasoning, necessitating the Court's intervention. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's bail order, and directed the first Respondent to surrender immediately, clarifying that the decision on bail did not affect the trial's merits.

In summary, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the inadequacy of reasoning in the High Court's bail order, emphasizing the need for detailed justifications in serious criminal cases. The Court overturned the bail decision due to the lack of proper application of mind and reasoning, highlighting the importance of ensuring credibility in the criminal justice system.