9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 161 Cr.P.C. The gravity of the crime should have been taken note of by the learned trial Judge. The factors that have been highlighted by this Court from time to time were required to be adverted to and the accused persons should not have been granted liberty on the grounds that have been thought appropriate by the learned trial Judge. The perversity of approach by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has enlarged the appellants on bail, is totally unacceptable. It is reflective of sanctuary of errors. In such a situation, we are obligated to say that the High Court has performed its legal duty by lancinating the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered as change of circumstance, but as the chronology of events would show the indefatigable spirit of the appellants forced them to remain embedded in their stance for putting any stand as a change of circumstance for the purpose of grant of bail. We do not intend to mean even for a moment that the accused cannot move successive application for grant of bail. That is his right in law. Our emphasis is on the delineation by the Court. The said right invigorated with adroit efforts, resulted in filing of an application in S.C. No. 90 of 2015. As is evident from the record, the earlier bail applications were rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, but the third application was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur. As the order would reveal, the learned trial Judge has thought it apposite to deal with the application as if he was dealing with the first application and copiously referred to the materials brought on record, referred to pronouncements in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[(2012) 1 SCC 40] and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others(2011) 1 SCC 694) and commented on the delay in trial and, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eria, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the respondent- State. Despite service of notice, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the informant. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel for the appellants that the High Court has erred in cancelling the order of bail as the appellants, after being enlarged on bail, had neither abused the freedom nor have they violated the terms and conditions of the bail order. It is urged by him that there is no allegation of tampering with the evidence or influencing any witnesses and therefore, there was no justification for cancellation of the order of granting bail. Learned senior counsel would further contend that the analysis made by the learned trial Judge for the purpose of grant of bail cannot be regarded as perverse and he has correctly relied upon the pronouncements as is noticeable from his order. It is put forth by Mr. Patil that at such distance of time not to admit the appellants on bail and give the stamp of approval to the order cancelling the bail by the High Court, would not sub-serve the cause of justice. 12. Mr. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 17. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy(2013) 7 SCC 452), the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:- "While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law." 19. In this context what has been stated by a three-Judge bench in Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 66) is quite instructive. In the said case, the Court has held that where the Court admits the accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. 20. In the instant case, as is demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has not been guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He has not kept himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications had been rejected and the matter had travelled to this Court. Once this Court has declined to enlarge the appellants on bail, endevours to project same factual score should not have been allowed. It is absolute impropriety and that impropriety call for axing of the order. 21. That apart, as we find from the narration of allegations from the order of the High Court, it is not a case where the trial court could have ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
