Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1519 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking enlargement of bail - Whether a 'victim' as defined Under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an Accused? - overlooking relevant considerations while passing the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused - HELD THAT:- It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen - A 'victim' within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. It is worth mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present Appellants, are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident dated 03.10.2021 - an application seeking a rehearing on the ground that the 'victims' could not participate in the proceedings was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to the Respondent-Accused - in the present case, the 'victims' have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the Respondent-Accused. Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations? - HELD THAT:- Power to grant bail Under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is one of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well-established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the Accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. It is thus deemed appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither have considered the merits of the case nor are we inclined to comment on the evidence collected by the SIT in the present case. The High Court has taken into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail. It has been ruled on numerous occasions that a F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of events. While the allegations in the F.I.R., that the Accused used his firearm and the subsequent post mortem and injury reports may have some limited bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to the same. Moreover, the observations on merits of a case when the trial has yet to commence, are likely to have an impact on the outcome of the trial proceedings - the order under challenge does not conform to the relevant considerations. Whether interference is warranted by this Court? - HELD THAT:-No Accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution - this Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the Respondent/Accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without depriving the Respondent-Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. Matter remanded back to the High Court - High Court shall decide the bail application afresh - appeal disposed off.
|