2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - Murder - It was alleged that the Accused used rods to beat the deceased with an intention to kill him and that after beating the deceased the Accused fled from the scene of the incident - HELD THAT - Essentially this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail. The power to grant bail Under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors among which the nature of the offence the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the Accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the Accused. That is a matter for trial. However the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved the continued custody of the Accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether on the basis of the evidentiary record there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the crime also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment. Without expressing any finding or opinion on the merits of the case a case has been made out for setting aside the bail granted by the High Court. The High Court has manifestly erred in not taking note of the material which has been adverted here. The order passed by the High Court fails to notice material facts and shows a non-application of mind to the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances referred to earlier which ought to have been taken into consideration - The High Court has erred in not considering material relevant to the determination of whether the Accused were to be enlarged on bail. The order of the High Court enlarging the Accused on bail is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 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 - The perfunctory analysis by the High Court in the present case cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's exercise of power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail.
2. Prima facie involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.
3. Adequacy of the High Court's reasoning in granting bail.
4. Consideration of the severity of the crime and the nature of the evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Exercise of Power Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Grant Bail:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to grant bail under Section 439 is of wide amplitude but must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The Court referenced *Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh* (2002), noting that the nature of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are critical factors in the grant of bail. The Court reiterated that while assessing a bail application, the court must balance numerous factors and that an appellate court must be slow to interfere with the lower court's decision unless there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion.

2. Prima Facie Involvement of the Accused in the Alleged Crime:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the post-mortem report recorded twenty-seven ante-mortem injuries, including seven on the head, leading to the conclusion that the cause of death was coma brought about by head injuries. The statement of Aashish Kumar, who was present at the time of the incident, detailed the alleged involvement of all five accused, attributing to them the common intention to kill the deceased. The charge-sheet further corroborated the involvement of the accused, noting the recovery of the deceased's mobile from one accused and the motorcycle from another. The Court concluded that there was a prima facie view of the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused.

3. Adequacy of the High Court's Reasoning in Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider material facts. The High Court's assessment was contained in a single paragraph, merely recording "having perused the record" and "on the facts and circumstances of the case," which the Supreme Court deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized the necessity for a reasoned judicial order, particularly in cases involving serious offenses, to ensure transparency and accountability in judicial decisions.

4. Consideration of the Severity of the Crime and the Nature of the Evidence:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime and the nature of the evidence against the accused. The post-mortem report and the statement of the eyewitness indicated the heinous nature of the offense and the prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court stressed that the grant of bail should be based on a judicious exercise of discretion, taking into account the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the trial or evading justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, finding it to be erroneous and lacking in proper application of mind. The Court ordered the cancellation of bail bonds and directed that the accused be taken into custody forthwith. The judgment clarified that it should not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case at trial.