Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Unnatural death of married woman within a year of marriage – Charge-sheet against her husband (first respondent) for offences u/ss.498-A and 304-B IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Bail application of first respondent rejected by Sessions Judge – Bail application u/s.439 CrPC before High Court – High Court allowed the application – Justification of – Held: In view of the provisions of s.304-B IPC, as well as the presumption arising u/s.113-B of Evidence Act, the High Court, on facts, was clearly not justified in granting bail – Prima facie, there were serious allegations in the FIR in regard to harassment suffered by deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for dowry by the accused – Submission in support of bail as recorded by High Court was that deceased was undergoing treatment for a mental illness – Medical prescription, submitted before the Court, however, prima facie indicates that there was no serious ailment – Also, the order of High Court did not contain the kind of reasoning expected of a judicial order – The High Court merely recorded the rival submissions, and, without any evaluation of the same, proceeded to grant bail without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law – Grant of bail to first respondent accordingly stand set aside – Bail – IPC – ss.498-A and 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3 and 4.
Bail – Evaluation of rival submissions – Requirement of – Held: The rival submissions have to be evaluated and not merely recorded by the court – While it is true that at the time of considering an application for bail, the High Court would not be required to launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which have to be determined in the course of trial, equally an application of mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439.
Bail – Reasoned bail orders – Necessity of – Held: An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process – While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most – That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application u/s.439 CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail – Reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice – Judgment / Order – Reasoned order – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Administration of Justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The submission in support of bail recorded by the High Court was that the sister of the appellant was undergoing treatment for a mental illness. The medical prescription, submitted before the Court, however, would prima facie indicate that there was no serious ailment. Prima facie, there are serious allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by the deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for dowry by the accused. In view of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the presumption which arises under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the High Court was clearly not justified in granting bail. [Para 9][83-G, H; 84-A-B]
2.1. The order of the High Court granting bail contains absolutely no reasons at all. While it is true that at the time of considering an application for bail the High Court would not be required to launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which have to be determined in the course of trial, equally an application of mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary. In the present case, the High Court has merely recorded the submissions and proceeded to grant bail without any evaluation of the rival submissions. [Para 10][84-B-D]
2.2.The lone sentence in the order of the High Court, intending to display some semblance of reasoning for justifying the grant of bail, contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) “the entire facts and circumstances of the case”; (ii) “submissions of learned Counsel for the parties”; (iii) “the nature of offence”; (iv) “evidence”; and (v) “complicity of accused”. This is followed by an observation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail”, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. This does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. The High Court cannot be oblivious, in a case such as the present, of the seriousness of the alleged offence, where a woman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. The seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassed for dowry; and that a telephone call was received from the accused in closeproximity to the time of death, making a demand. There are specific allegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry. An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. Reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice. [Para 11] [84-F-H; 85-A-E]
3. The order of the High Court granting bail without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law requires the interference of this Court. The grant of bail to the first respondent shall accordingly stand set aside. [Paras 12, 13][85-E-F]
Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal (2009) 1 SCC 678: [2008] 17 SCR 1348 –relied 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.