Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2023 - SUPREME COURTSeeking grant of regular bail - conspiracy to systematically upturn the establishment to cause secession of J & K from the Union of India - framing of charges - accused guilty of offence - Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - HELD THAT:- A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage-of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail-is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate exa mination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the Accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise. From the analysis of the impugned judgment, it appears that the High Court has ventured into an area of examining the merits and demerits of the evidence. For, it noted that the evidence in the form of statements of witnesses Under Section 161 are not admissible. Further, the documents pressed into service by the Investigating Agency were not admissible in evidence. Once charges are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge. In that situation, the Accused may have to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the court that despite the framing of charge, the materials presented along with the charge-sheet (report Under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure), do not make out reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against him is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report made Under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the materials/evidences which depicted the involvement of the Respondent in the commission of the stated offences and being a member of a larger conspiracy, besides the offence Under Section 17 for raising funds for terrorist activities - the Court may release such Accused on bail only if it is of the opinion, on perusal of the case diary and/or the report made Under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure that there are "no reasonable grounds" for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Conversely, if in the opinion of the Court, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true, the question of granting bail would not arise as the bar under the first part of the proviso of no bail in such cases would operate. There are force in the argument of the Appellant that the High Court, in the present case, adopted an inappropriate approach whilst considering the prayer for grant of bail. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the material and evidence on record as it is and ought not to have discarded it as being inadmissible. The High Court clearly overlooked the settled legal position that, at the stage of considering the prayer for bail, it is not necessary to weigh the material, but only form opinion on the basis of the material before it on broad probabilities. The Court is expected to apply its mind to ascertain whether the accusations against the Accused are prima face true - it is deemed proper to reverse the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the Respondent. The impugned judgment and order is set aside - the order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application for grant of bail made by the Respondent herein, is affirmed.
|