9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Hon'ble Judges M.R. Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely, Yameen. 4. Appellant's son, Mobin was medically examined on the date of the incident and the medical report records that that incised wounds were found on his hand, which could be caused by a sharp edged object. The injury report of Jamshed described three injuries, i.e. an incised wound on the scalp, abrasion and contusion on the back and arm. 5. After conducting an investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet only against three Accused, namely, Sullad, Bhoora alias Shadab and Yamin. They were subsequently arrested by the Police. The Accused-Respondents in the instant appeals are the eight other Accused named in the FIR but were not charge-sheeted. 6. The Appellant filed an application Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC for the sake of brevity) for summoning the Accused-Respondents herein who were not charge sheeted by the Police. The Accused-Respondents were summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 21st September, 2019. 7. On the date of commencement of trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, the Accused Sullad, Bhoora alias Shadab and Yamin were presented before the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Firoz were also rejected by a separate order dated 8th July, 2020, having regard to the seriousness of the offences alleged against the Respondents. 13. Accused-Respondent Meherban preferred a bail application before the High Court and the same was allowed by the impugned order dated 7th October 2020 with a direction that the Accused be released on bail. Subsequently, the bail application preferred by the Accused-Respondents Jumma, Hakmeen, Yaseen, Arshad and Firoz was also allowed by the High Court by impugned order dated 17th November 2020 by relying on the order granting bail to co-Accused Meherban. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred these appeals before this Court. 14. We have heard Sri. Ronak Karanpuria, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, learned Counsel for Accused-Respondents and Sri. R.K. Raizada, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the material on record. 15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned orders of the High Court have been passed without exercising jurisdiction in a judicious manner. In support of this contention, it was submitted that the Accused-Respondents had fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. It has further been submitted that the Accused-Respondents have no criminal antecedents and therefore, the High Court acted in accordance with law in enlarging the Accused-Respondents on bail. It has also been contended that a court deciding a bail application should avoid elaborate discussion on merits of the case as detailed discussion of facts at a pre-trial stage is bound to prejudice fair trial. It was submitted that the allegations against the Respondent-Accused are false and hence the impugned orders of the High Court do not call for any interference in these appeals. 18. Having regard to the contention of Sri. Ronak Karanpuria, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned orders granting bail to the Accused Respondents are bereft of any reasoning and they are cryptic and bail has been granted in a casual manner, we extract those portions of the impugned orders dated 7th October, 2020 and 17th November, 2020 passed by the High Court which provide the reasoning of the Court for granting bail, as under: Impugned Order dated 7th October, 2020 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November, 2020 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Let the applicants-Jumma, Hakmeen, Yaseen, Arshad, and Firoz involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice: (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments of this Court in the matter of granting bail to an Accused as under: a) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that have to be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 496 this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court has enumerated the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. f) Another factor which should guide the courts' decision in deciding a bail application is the period of custody. However, as noted in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446, the period of custody has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents of the Accused, if any. Further, the circumstances which may justify the grant of bail are to be considered in the larger context of the societal concern involved in releasing an Accused, in juxtaposition to individual liberty of the Accused seeking bail. g) In Neeru Yadav v. State of UP and 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, observed through Dipak Misra, J. (as His Lordship then was) in paragraph 18 as under: 18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting bail to the Accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1663/2021, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order of the High Court granting bail to the Accused, observed as follows: While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an Accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the Accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis- -vis the offence/s alleged against an Accused. 20. On the aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37) (k) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of due process . Though the aforesaid judgment was rendered in the context of a dismissal of a revision petition by a cryptic order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reliance could be placed on the said judgment on the need to give reasons while deciding a matter. 21. The Latin maxim cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex meaning reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself , is also apposite. 22. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orders above. At the outset, we find that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the reasoning of the High court while granting bail. As evident from the judgments of this Court referred to above, a court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as swords and knives. c) That there was allegedly a pre-existing enmity between the deceased and Bhoora, one of the Accused, which apparently had been settled by the local residents. d) The Accused-Respondents were summoned by the Trial Court by order dated 21st September, 2019. The Accused preferred an application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying for an order quashing the order dated 21st September, 2019. By an order dated 11th November, 2019, the High Court dismissed the said application and granted 30 days' time to the Accused to surrender before the Trial Court. The Accused-Respondents assailed the said order by preferring a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Crl.) No. 10947/2019, before this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 6th December 2019. e) The Accused-Respondents resisted arrest for a period of approximately three and a half months as they were absconding. The Accused failed to surrender before the Trial Court in gross violation of the directions of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, the High Court and even this Court. This is a glaring instance of gross violation of the courts' orders and Rule of law. f) The Accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
