9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in the recent decision in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VERSUS VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ORS. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1276 - SUPREME COURT] . Emphasizing on giving brief reasons while granting bail, it is observed by this Court in the above case that though it is a well settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. It is further observed that however the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the informant due to which the informant also got injured to some extent. After that all the accused persons brutally assaulted the informant by means of Lathi, Danda. When co-villagers started assembling there then all the accused persons fled away. Later on, both the injured persons were brought to the Sadar Hajipur and thereafter they were referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. 2.1 That during the course of treatment, Shardanand Bhagat succumbed to the bullet injury. So, later on, Section 302 IPC was added. All the accused persons were arrested including the respondent No.2 - Ramawatar Bhagat. The bail application filed by the respondent No.2 - Ramawatar Bhagat came to be rejected by the Sessions Court by giving cogent reasons and by observing that the respondent No.2 - accused Ramawatar Bhagat and other accused persons named in the F.I.R. formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter killed Shardanand Bhagat. The Sessions Court also observed that so far as respondent No.2 - Ramawatar Bhagat is concerned, he has actively participated in such heinous offence and therefore having considered the gravity of the case, no case for bail is made out. That thereafter the respondent No.2 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant considerations while granting bail as laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, including the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129. 3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has even totally ignored the antecedents of the accused. It is submitted that what is weighed with the High Court seems to be a parity as one other co-accused Shashi Bhushan Bhagat has been allowed bail. It is submitted that however, the High Court has not at all appreciated the distinct and distinguished features so far as the case of co-accused Shashi Bhushan Bhagat is concerned. It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the case of co-accused Shashi Bhushan Bhagat is different from the respondent No.2 accused. It is further submitted that the High Court has also not at all considered the fact that earlier the respondent No.2 is also an accused in double murder case. He is involved in murder of the informant s father and younger brother and for which the cases are pending against him and the trial is at the stage of recording of evidence. It is submitted that the High Court has not at all noted and/or appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties at length. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 accused on bail. 7. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it can be seen that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail. After recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State thereafter the High Court has only observed that considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner s counsel. Prayer for the bail of the petitioner is allowed. There is no further reasoning given at all. Neither the High Court has considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. In the case of Mahipal (supra) while emphasizing to give brief reasons while granting the bail to an accused in paragraphs 24 to 27, it is observed and held as under:- 24. There is another reason why the judgment of the learned Single Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. (emphasis supplied) 27. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted. 8. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the recent decision in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra). Emphasizing on giving brief reasons while granting bail, it is observed by this Court in the above case that though it is a well settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. It is further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d aside the same and has not considered the same at all. The High Court has noted the submission on behalf of the accused that one other accused Shashi Bhushan Bhagat has been released on bail. However, the High Court has not at all considered whether the case of Shashi Bhushan Bhagat is similar to that of the respondent No.2 accused - Ramawatar Bhagat or not. It appears that the High Court has passed the order mechanically and in a most perfunctory manner. In the case of In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422, after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court on the considerations to be placed at balance while deciding to grant bail, it is observed in paragraphs 15 and 18 as under: 15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
