TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court which was rejected on the ground that he is named in the FIR on the basis of the information provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been clarified after perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was shot by the Respondent No. 2/Accused himself. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2/Accused filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking regular bail. Grant of bail to the Respondent No.2/Accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable. The High Court has not taken into consideration the criminal history of the Respondent No.2/Accused, nature of crime, material evidences available, involvement of Respondent No.2/Accused in the said crime and recovery of weapon from his possession - the impugned order passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside. The bail bonds of Respondent No.2/Accused stand cancelled and he is hereby directed to surrender within one week from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the concerned police authorities shall take him into custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howk, Lucknow and Sri. Ashok Kumar Singh, SI/First Investigating Officer. 4. Respondent No. 2/Accused was arrested by the police on 13.01.2021 and one country made pistol with two live cartages were recovered from him. The Appellant/Informant s father passed away on 14.01.2021 on account of which the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. The co-accused, Sushil Kumar Yadav surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 16.01.2021. 5. After completion of investigation and upon finding sufficient evidence, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court on 06.04.2021 against Respondent No.2/Accused and co-accused Sushil Kumar Yadav under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. Furthermore, investigation against two unknown accused persons is pending 6. Respondent No.2/Accused filed Bail Application No. 3340/2021 before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow and the same was rejected vide order dated 28.06.2021 on the ground that he has been named on the basis of the information provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been clarified after the perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was shot by Respondent No. 2/Accused himself. 7. Respondent No. 2/Accused then m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law; 7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad; 8. The concerned court/authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 8. We have heard Mr. Awanish Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2. 9. Mr. Awanish Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently submitted that the High Court has granted bail to the Respondent No. 2/Accused, who is a known criminal with criminal antecedents in a very casual manner only on the ground of parity without any focus on the role o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record. 17. The main issue arising in this appeal for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C ) for grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case. 18. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is important to understand the extent of the power of the High Court to grant bail and the factors determining nature and gravity of the crime in order to grant bail to accuse concerned. As rightly stated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process . ANALYSIS A. Principles governing grant of bail 19. Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is the guiding principle for adjudicating a Regular Bail Application wherein Court takes into consideration several aspects. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised cautiously on the basis of wellsettled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 20. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (2013) 16 SCC 797, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2014) 16 SCC 508, Virupakshappa Gouda And Another Vs. State of Karnataka And Another (2017) 5 SCC 406, State of Orissa Vs. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516. 23. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Y Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 decided on 19.04.2022 authored by one of us (Hon ble N.V. Ramana, CJI), it has been observed as under :- 22. The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that the facts and the circumstances have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. 23. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. In the case of Mahipal (Supra), this Court observed as follows:- 25. Merely recording having perused the record and on the facts and circumstances of the case does not subserve the purpose of a reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration for grant of bail by the courts has been described in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav And Another (2004) 7 SCC 528 as under : - 11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well-settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate 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. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. We must, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which a succession of orders in the present batch of cases has recorded that counsel for the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order . If this is a euphemism for not recording adequate reasons, this kind of a formula cannot shield the order from judicial scrutiny. 36. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. 28. Similarly, this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay (Supra), observed that :- 3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Bail 30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are :- (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice (ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (iv) Possibility of accused absconding (v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail (vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses. 31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity and the soundness of the order passed by the Court 33. This Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that: - 17. 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. 34. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam And Others Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And Another (2011) 6 SCC 189 held that:- 18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. if there are serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted to having committed the offence. Respondent No. 2 has a criminal history and several criminal matters have been lodged against him: (1) Case Crime no. 016/2021 u/s 302/34 IPC (2) Case Crime no. 020/2021 u/s 25 of the Arms Act (3) Proceedings of 110G on 05.11.2021 (4) Beat Information (G.D No. 33) dated 18.12.2021 (5) Beat Information (G.D. No. 44) dated 19.12.2021 37. There is certainly no straight jacket formula which exists for courts to assess an application for grant or rejection of bail but the determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves 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. This Court does not, normally interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with basic principles laid down in a catena of judgments by this Court. 38. However having said that, in the case at hand, it is manifestly incorrect on the part of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
