Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 482, 173 – Bail – When not granted – FIR was registered against the ten accused for offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 r/w. s.34 of the IPC – The first respondent was not named in the FIR, his role is alleged to have emerged during the course of the investigation – After the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the accused, including the first respondent – During the course of the deposition, PW 1 has adverted to the role of the first respondent – Bail application filed by the first respondent was dismissed by the Session Court – The first respondent moved the High Court for grant of bail – Single Judge of the High Court granted bail – On appeal, held: The High Court has failed to notice the facts bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the offence – Once the role of the first respondent has emerged during the course of the investigation, followed by the filing of a charge-sheet, no case for the grant of bail was made out – That apart, Additional Sessions Judge in his order adverted to the fact that the first respondent upon being granted bail has consistently remained absent from the trial – Hence, the order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside – First respondent directed to surrender.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Grant of – Points to be considered while granting bail – The Court is duty bound to consider: (i) The seriousness and gravity of the crime; (ii) The role attributed to the accused; (iii) The likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with if bail is granted; (iv) The likelihood of the accused not being available for trial if bail 6 is granted; and (v) The criminal antecedents of the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Grant of – Whether to write an elaborate or detailed judgment or not – Held: At the stage of deciding as to whether or not to grant bail, the Court is not expected to write an elaborate or detailed judgment – However, the reasons in support of an order granting or refusing bail must emerge from the record and must show a due application of mind by the Judge to the facts of the case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The manner in which the Single Judge of the High Court has disposed of the application for bail is unsatisfactory. In determining as to whether bail should be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court is duty bound to consider: (i) The seriousness and gravity of the crime; (ii) The role attributed to the accused; (iii) The likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with if bail is granted; (iv) The likelihood of the accused not being available for trial if bail is granted; and (v) The criminal antecedents of the accused. In successive orders, the Single Judge of the High Court granted bail containing the same sentence, purportedly of reasons. Merely recording that the Court has had regard to the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate of Article 21 is not a satisfactory method for the simple reason that the facts of the case have to be considered. Moreover, not all the circumstances referred to above will weigh in the same direction. The duty to consider the circumstances of the case cannot be obviated by setting down legal formulations. [Paras 10 & 11][361-E-H; 362-A-C]
2. At the stage of deciding as to whether or not to grant bail, the Court is not expected to write an elaborate or detailed judgment. However, the reasons in support of an order granting or refusing bail must emerge from the record and must show a due application of mind by the Judge to the facts of the case. An over-burdened docket is no justification for formulaic justice. This Court, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has been dealing with applications for bail. [Paras 13][363-D]
3. The High Court has failed to notice the facts bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the offence. The incident has led to the murder of two sons of the appellant as a result of firearm injuries. The name of the first respondent has clearly emerged during the course of the investigation in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. As a matter of fact, the cross case alleging that the first respondent was injured during the course of the investigation would indicate prima facie, his presence at the scene of the incident. Once the role of the first respondent has emerged during the course of the investigation, followed by the filing of a charge-sheet, we are clearly of the view that no case for the grant of bail was made out before the High Court. The first respondent has undergone about two years and two months of custody. That apart, the Additional Sessions Judge at Meerut in his order dated 23 August 2022 adverted to the fact that the first respondent upon being granted bail has consistently remained absent from the trial and has sought repeated adjournments as a result of which the cross-examination of the witnesses has remained to be concluded. As a result, it is evident that the first respondent upon being released on bail has failed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial despite the directions given by the High Court in its order dated 7 April 2022. He is evading the conclusion of the trial. [Para 19][365-C-G] Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019]
14 SCR 529; Aminuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021 decided by the
Supreme Court – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.