TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Ultimately, the Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the Accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other. This is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against him. Strangely, the State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the impugned order - the High Court was not right in allowing the application for bail filed by the Respondent-Accused. Appeal allowed. - M.R. Shah And B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Adv., Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv., Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Adv., Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR. JUDGMENT B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the informant-Appellant assailing Order dated 7th May, 2020 passed by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur after conducting an investigation in relation to the aforesaid FIR. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate by Order dated 12th March, 2020 took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court for trial and adjudication. 6. The Respondent-Accused had earlier preferred applications seeking bail, Under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the CrPC ) before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on two occasions. The same came to be rejected by orders dated 23rd January, 2020 and 6th March, 2020. The Accused had also preferred a bail application Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan by order dated 12th March, 2020 having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the Accused. The Respondent-Accused preferred another bail application before the High Court and by the impugned order dated 7th May, 2020, the High Court has enlarged him on bail. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused, the informant-Appellant has preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce station. It was contended that the Accused, being a very influential person in the village, could influence the course of trial by tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, the High Court has not assigned reasons for grant of bail in the instant case wherein commission of a heinous crime has been alleged against the Accused, for which, the Accused, if convicted, could be sentenced to life imprisonment or even death penalty. That the High Court in a very cryptic order, de hors any reasoning has granted bail to the Respondent-Accused. It was urged that the grant of bail to the Respondent-Accused was contrary to the settled principles of law and the judgments of this Court. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant, who is the son of the deceased, that this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 11. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on certain decisions of this Court which shall be referred to later. 12. Per contra, Sri. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, learned Counsel for Respondent-Accused submitted that the impugned order does not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y witness or tampering with the evidence. That the Accused has deep roots in society and will therefore not attempt to abscond. Also, the Accused has no criminal antecedents and the incident in question occurred as a result of a sudden scuffle and therefore, prima facie, offence Under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made out against the Accused. Hence, the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused does not call for interference by this Court. 13. Having regard to the contention of Sri. Basant R., learned Senior Counsel for the informant-Appellant that the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused is bereft of any reasoning and that such order is casual and cryptic, we extract the portion of the impugned order dated 7th May, 2020 passed by the High Court which is the reasoning of the Court for granting bail, as under: I have considered the submissions and perused the challan papers and the postmortem report, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the Accused-Petitioner on bail. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that Accused-Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the Accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the Accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the Accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. s c) This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasized that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail, has to undertake the same judiciously. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast Rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. i) In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli) and Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 230 this Court after referring to a catena of judgments emphasized on the need and importance of assigning reasons for the grant of bail. This Court categorically observed that a court granting bail could not obviate its duty to apply its judicial mind and indicate reasons as to why bail has been granted or refused. The observations of this Court have been extracted as under: 35. We disapprove of the observations of the High Court in a succession of orders in the present case recording that the Counsel for the parties do not press for a further reasoned order . The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the Accused, the interest of the State and the victims of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is a well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s distinguished from an application for cancellation of bail. i.e. this Court distinguished between setting aside a perverse order granting bail vis- -vis cancellation of bail on the ground that the Accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. Quoting Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, this Court observed as under: 16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. k) Learned Counsel for the Accused-Respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court in Myakala Dharmarajam and Ors. v. The State of Telang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is stated in the complaint that the Appellants were roaming freely in the village and threatening witnesses. We have perused the complaint and found that the allegations made therein are vague. There is no mention about which Accused out of the 15 indulged in acts of holding out threats to the witnesses or made an attempt to tamper with the evidence. 12. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and examining the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The orders passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses. Therefore, the Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case for the following reasons: Firstly, this Court in the aforecited decision restored the order granting bail to the Accused on the ground that although no discussion was made by the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 15. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein after referring to a number of judgments this Court summarised at paragraph 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under: (a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (c) Reasons reassure that discretion has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself , is also apposite. 17. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the reasoning of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the Accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the Accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the Accused; tampering of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the Respondent-Accused is a person exercising significant political influence in the Bhopawaspachar village and that owing to the same, the informant found it difficult to get an FIR registered against him. That the Accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest. Thus, the possibility of the Accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out. d) That the Respondent-Accused had earlier preferred applications seeking bail, Under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, on two occasions. The same came to be rejected by orders dated 23rd January, 2020 and 6th March, 2020. The Accused had also preferred a bail application Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolis by order dated 12th March, 2020 having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the Accused. e) The High Court in the impugned order dated 7th May, 2020 has not considered the aforestated aspects of the case in the context of the grant of bail. 21. Having consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
