Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Bail – Grant/cancellation of – When – Held: Power of the High Court u/s. 439 is wide – Exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court when considering grant of bail ought to be in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – If an order is passed without proper application of mind or in contravention of directions of this court, it would be susceptible to interference – When it comes to assessing an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances or any violation of the conditions of bail imposed on the person who has been accorded such a relief – On facts, the impugned order enlarging the accused on bail is cryptic and non-speaking demonstrated nonapplication of mind – High Court erred in not offering any reason, good, bad or indifferent and mechanically recorded the submissions – Thus, looking at the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent no.2 u/s. 302 and the award of life imprisonment, and also having regards to his criminal antecedents that he is a hardened criminal with several cases registered against him, the bail is cancelled.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide ranging. Nonetheless, the exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court when considering grant of bail, ought to be in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. [Para 16][32-D]
1.2 Ordinarily, this Court would refrain from interfering with an order passed by the High Court, either granting or rejecting the relief of bail to an accused. However, wherever it is noticed that such a discretion has been exercised by the High Court without proper application of mind or in contravention of the directions issued by this Court, such an order shall be susceptible to interference. [Para 17][33-D-E]
1.3 The considerations that weigh with the appellate court when called upon to examine the correctness of an order granting bail is not on the same footing when it comes to examining an application moved for cancellation of bail. The yardstick for testing the correctness of an order granting bail is whether the court below has exercised its discretion in an improper or arbitrary manner thereby vitiating the said order. When it comes to assessing an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances or any violation of the conditions of bail imposed on the person who has been accorded such a relief. [Para 21][36-C-D]
1.4 A glance at the impugned order passed by the High Court is to state the least, cryptic and non-speaking, amply demonstrating non-application of mind. The High Court appears to have shut its eyes to the common submissions that the respondent No.2 is a hardened criminal with several cases registered against him. List of cases registered against the accused reveals that he has faced/is still facing trial in the thirtyseven cases registered against him under the IPC, Arms Act, 1959, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, etc., where the offences are grave in nature. [Para 24][39-D-F]
1.5 In the past decade, six cases more have been registered against the respondent No.2, The list that has been furnished to this Court by the respondent No.1-State, does not mention eleven cases that had been mentioned in the list of cases pending against the respondent no.2. If the said cases are added to the current list of thirty-seven criminal cases registered against the accused, the number of criminal cases registered against the him would swell to fifty. [Para 27][42-G-H; 43-A]
1.6 The High Court failed to factor in the relevant material before passing an order enlarging the respondent No.2 on bail. The High Court also seriously erred in not offering any reason, good, bad or indifferent, for exercising its discretion in favour of the said respondent. There is no reference made to any particular element that persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order granting bail to the respondent No.2. Mechanically recording the submissions made by the counsel for the accused and the complainant and noting the protest of the counsel for the State and thereafter proceeding to release the respondent No.2 on bail by pre-fixing the operative para of the order with the words “in view of the aforesaid”, can hardly reflect application of judicial mind by the Court. As an appellate court, this Court is completely at seas to discern the factors that have weighed with the High Court to enlarge the respondent No.2 on bail. [Para 28][43-B-D]
1.7 Looking at the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 302 IPC for which he has been convicted by the trial court and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and noting that the period of custody undergone by him is only for nine months and further, having regard to his criminal antecedents, the impugned order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the respondent No.2 are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith. [Para 32][44-G-H; 45-A]
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh And Others (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia and Another (2020) 2 SCC
118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another (2004) 7 SCC 528; Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another (2008) 13 SCC 584 : [2008] 6 SCR 1149; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2012) 4 SCC 134 : [2012]
3 SCR 278; Abdul Basit Alias Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another (2014) 10 SCC
754 : [2014] 10 SCR 571; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014) 16 SCC 508 : [2014] 12 SCR 453; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR 195; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; Jagjeet Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Another (2022) SCC Online SC 453; Ms. Y. v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2022) SCC OnLine SC 458; Ms. P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Criminal Appeal No.740 of 2022 decided on 05.05.2022; Prakash Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Another (2011) 6 SCC 189 : [2011] 6 SCR 800; Imran v. Mohammed Bhava and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 496; Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another (2012) 9 SCC 446 : [2012] 7 SCR 584; Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 : [2001] 3 SCR 432 - referred to.
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.