Ramadhar Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2022

[Cites 47, Cited by 11]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramadhar Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                       1                           MCRC-58792-2021

               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      GWALIOR BENCH

                              SINGLE BENCH

                      JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

                         M.Cr.C. No. 58792 of 2021

                           Ramadhar Baghel
                                 Vs.
                 State of Madhya Pradesh and another

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.K. Shukla, Counsel for applicant.
Shri P.P.S. Bajitha, Counsel for State/respondent No. 1.
Shri Arun Dudawat, Counsel for respondent No. 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing                        : 07.03.2022
Date of Judgment                       : 14th .03.2022
Approved for Reporting                 :

                                 ORDER

th 14 - March, 2022 This application under Section 439(2) of CrPC has been filed for cancellation of bail order dated 15.11.2021 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No.289/2020 arising out of Crime No.159/2020 registered at Police Station Banmore District Morena.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that on the complaint of the complainant, police had registered Crime No.159/2020 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506, 324 of IPC. The charge-sheet was filed on 07.10.2020 and cognizance of the offence was taken by the Trial Court on the said date. Respondent No. 2 was present as he was 2 MCRC-58792-2021 released on bail by the police. The copies of the charge-sheet were given to the accused persons. Since bailable offences were registered against the respondent No. 2, therefore, the following order was passed on 7.10.2020:-

^^vkjksihx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 323] 294] 506] 324 Hkk-n-la- ds rgr izdj.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks tekurh;

izd`fr dk gSA vr% vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vkjksih dh vksj ls nl gtkj :i;s dh tekur o mruhjkf'k dk Lo;a dk eqpydk izLrqr djsa rks mls@mUgsa tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkos vU;Fkk mldk@mudk tsy okj.V cukdj tsy eqjSuk Hkstk tkosA izdj.k vkjksi rdZ gsrq fnuakd 10&12&20 dks is'k gksA^^

3. Thereafter, it appears that the applicant filed an application under Section 193 of CrPC for taking cognizance under Section 307 of IPC also as the police had not deliberately filed charge-sheet for offence under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the Sessions Court by order dated 12.11.2021 came to a conclusion that there is sufficient material to take cognizance under Sections 307, 34 of IPC and, accordingly, the bail granted to the respondent under the pretext that all the offences registered against him are bailable in nature, was cancelled and the case was fixed for appearance of the respondent No. 2 on 04.12.2021. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 438 of CrPC which has been allowed by the Court below by order dated 15.11.2021 passed in S.T. No.289/2020 which is under challenge before this Court.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since on earlier occasion, the merits of the case were not considered by the Court below and the respondent No. 2 was granted bail merely on the 3 MCRC-58792-2021 ground that all the offences registered against him are bailable in nature, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of mere enhancement of Section 307 of IPC. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was allegedly armed with a gun and the allegations are that he had fired a gunshot causing injury to Ramveer.

5. The gravity of the offence was never considered by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the respondent No.2 and thus, the subsequent taking of cognizance under Section 307 of IPC would necessarily result in cancellation of bail, which was rightly done by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that once an arrest warrant was issued against the respondent No.2, then the only option available with him was to file an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and not to file an application for anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that once the allegations were already available on record and the Court below after having considered the allegations had granted bail, then mere addition of a non-bailable offence, would not require re-arrest of the respondent No.2 and the Court below has rightly granted bail after considering the allegations, which are part of the case diary. It is further submitted that the grounds for cancellation of bail are different from that of grant of bail. Once the bail is granted by the Court below, then it can be cancelled only if it is misused by the accused.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4 MCRC-58792-2021

8. So far as the grounds for cancellation of bail are considered, the said law is well settled. If a person files an application for cancellation of bail before the Court below, which had granted bail, then the grounds would be of misuse of liberty because any other ground may be hit by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. However, if the complainant challenges the order of grant of bail before the superior Court on the ground that the bail has been erroneously granted without considering the allegations levelled against the accused, then the superior Court can always consider the severity of the allegations as well as, as to whether the Court below has granted bail after considering the relevancy of the material / evidence collected during the course of investigation or not ?

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 633) by order dated 24.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.883/2021 has held as under:-

"7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

Before considering the rival submissions on behalf of the respective parties, few decisions of this Court on how to exercise the discretionary power for grant of bail and the duty of the appellate court, particularly when bail was refused by the court(s) below and the principles and considerations for granting or refusing the bail are required to be referred to and considered.

7.1 In the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240, this Court has observed and held that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice. The nature of the charge is a vital factor and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The severity of the punishment to which the accused may be liable if 5 MCRC-58792-2021 convicted also bears upon the issue. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. The Court has also to consider the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is further observed that it is rational to enquire into the antecedents of the man who is applying for bail to find out whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail.

7.2 In the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, this Court in paragraphs 17 to 19 observed and held as under:

"17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom".

18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of 6 MCRC-58792-2021 greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter stated:

"Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law."

19. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act."

7.3 In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521, it is observed and held by this Court that while granting of bail, the following factors among other circumstances are required to be considered by the Court:

1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and

3. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

It is further observed that any order dehors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind.

7.4 In the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, where the High Court released the accused on bail in a case for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and other offences recording the only contention put forth by the counsel for the accused and further recording that "taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing the opinion on merits of case, this Court deems fit just and proper to enlarge/release the accused on bail", while setting aside the order passed by the 7 MCRC-58792-2021 High Court granting bail, one of us (Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

"11. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 CrPC to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, Umesh Banerjee, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms:

"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 course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. ... The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused

8 MCRC-58792-2021 beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the 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. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.

7.5 That thereafter this Court considered the principles that guide while assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail. This Court specifically observed and held that normally this Court does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting the bail to the accused. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. This Court further observed that the power of the appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for cancellation of bail. It is further observed that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was a proper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. It is further observed that the 9 MCRC-58792-2021 test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. Thereafter this Court considered the difference and distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate court granting bail in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under:

"13. The principles that guide this Court in assessing the correctness of an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11- 1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting bail were succinctly laid down by this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496. In that case, the accused was facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Several bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court in turn allowed the bail application filed by the accused. Setting aside the order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] of the High Court, D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, held:

"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] 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 the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any 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.

10 MCRC-58792-2021

10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it to be illegal."

14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a caseby-case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.

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. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.(2014) 16 SCC 508, the accused was granted bail by the High Court [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P.[ 2014 SCC OnLine 11 MCRC-58792-2021 All 16031]. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court surveyed the precedent on the principles that guide the grant of bail. Dipak Misra, J. held:

"12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court."

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. The order [Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 5197] of the High Court in the present case, insofar as it is relevant reads:

"2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that, the deceased was driving his motorcycle, which got slipped on a sharp turn, due to which he received injuries on various parts of body including ante-mortem head injuries on account of which he died. Counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented 12 MCRC-58792-2021 in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail." Thereafter this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail."

Thereafter, this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail.

8. At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (koli) 2021 (6) SCALE 41 is also required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court considered in great detail the considerations which govern the grant of bail, after referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay (Supra); Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (Supra); Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525; and the decision of this Court in Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav 2021 SCC Online SC 286. After considering the law laid down by this Court on grant of bail, in the aforesaid decisions, in paragraphs 20, 21, 36 & 37 it is observed and held as under:

"20. The first aspect of the case which stares in the face is the singular absence in the judgment of the High Court to the nature and gravity of the crime. The incident which took place on 9 May 2020 resulted in five homicidal deaths. The nature of the offence is a circumstance which has an important bearing on the grant of bail. The orders of the High Court are conspicuous in the absence of any awareness or elaboration of the serious nature of the offence. The perversity lies in the failure of the High Court to consider an important circumstance which has a bearing on whether bail should be granted. In the two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan Singh, the nature of the crime was recorded as "one of the basic considerations" which has a bearing on the grant or denial of bail. The considerations which govern the grant of bail were elucidated in the judgment of this Court without attaching an exhaustive nature or character to them. This emerges from the following 13 MCRC-58792-2021 extract:

"4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

21. This Court further laid down the standard for overturning an order granting bail in the following terms:

"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 course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained."

xxx xxx xxx

14 MCRC-58792-2021 This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P (2004) 7 SCC 525 in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for nonapplication of mind. This Court observed:

"8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications. Yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied, as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

9. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence..."

37. We are also constrained to record our disapproval of the manner in which the application for bail of Vishan (A-6) was disposed of. The High Court sought to support its decision to grant bail by stating that it had perused the material on record and was granting bail "without discussing the evidence in detail" taking into consideration:

(1) The facts of the case;

(2) The nature of allegations;

(3) Gravity of offences; and (4) Role attributed to the accused.

10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. The High Court has also failed to appreciate the facts of the case; the nature of allegations; gravity of offence and the role attributed to the accused. As per the allegations, the accused Inderpreet Singh, respondent no.1 herein is the main conspirator who hatched the conspiracy along with other co-accused and that too from the jail. The High Court has also failed to notice the serious allegation of hatching conspiracy from the jail. The High Court ought to have considered that if respondent no.1 - accused Inderpreet Singh can hatch the conspiracy from jail, what he will not do if he is released on bail. As such, in the 15 MCRC-58792-2021 present case, the High Court has failed to notice that earlier respondent no.1 - accused has been involved in four cases and has been convicted and even while on bail during the pendency of the appeal against the conviction, again he indulged into similar activities and committed the offence..................

12. The aforesaid relevant considerations are not at all considered by the High Court in its true perspective. Grant of bail to respondent no.1 herein does not appear to be in order. The antecedents of respondent no.1 herein; the threat perception to the appellant and his family members are also not considered by the High Court. We are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in granting bail to respondent no.1 herein without taking into consideration the overall facts, otherwise having a bearing on exercise of its discretion on the issue. The order passed by the High Court fails to notice material facts and shows nonapplication of mind to the seriousness of the crime and circumstances, which ought to have been taken into consideration."

10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Pahade Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 18.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.933/2014 has held as under:-

"10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the prosecutrix invited our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1979) 4 SCC 719 (Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab); a Constitutional Bench decision reported as (1980) 3 SCC 141 (P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and another); and (2000) 2 SCC 391 (R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP). Learned counsel has placed a heavy reliance upon a decision reported as (2001) 6 SCC 338 (Puran etc. vs. Rambilas and another etc.) and a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2016) 6 SCC 699 (Amanullah and Another vs. State of Bihar and others). Learned counsel also relies upon the Declaration of "Basic Principles of Justice of Victim for Crime and Abuse of Power"

adopted in 96th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 29th November 1985. The declaration laid down the following for access to justice and fair treatment to the victims:-

"4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they 16 MCRC-58792-2021 have suffered.

5. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.

6. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by:

(a) Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information;

(b) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system;

(c) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;

(d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation;

(e) Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees granting awards to victims."

19. In Amanullah's case (supra), the Court examined the locus standi in a criminal case and held that though it is the duty of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him but if the State fails in this regard and party having bona fide connection with the cause of action cannot be left at the mercy of the State without any option to approach the appellate court for seeking justice. The Court held that the appeal is maintainable preferred by a witness. The Court held as under:-

"19. The term 'locus standi' is a Latin term, the general meaning of which is "place of standing". Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edn., at page 834, defines the term "locus standi" as the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The traditional view of "locus standi" has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court that is to say 17 MCRC-58792-2021 he only has a right to move the court for seeking justice. Later, this Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict rule with regard to "locus standi", allowing any person from the society not related to the cause of action to approach the court seeking justice for those who could not approach themselves. Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial, which is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in CrPC. Since, offence is considered to be a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. The focal point, here, is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bona fide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate court for seeking justice.

*** *** ***

24. After considering the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents, in the light of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the appellants have locus standi to maintain this appeal. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court, namely, P.S.R Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141 and other decisions of this Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395, Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585, Rama Kant Verma v. State of U.P., (2008) 17 SCC 257. Further, it is pertinent here to observe that it may not be possible to strictly enumerate as to who all will have locus to maintain an appeal before this Court invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it depends upon the factual matrix of each case, as each case has its unique set of facts. It is clear from the aforementioned case law that the Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having bona fide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to advance substantial justice.

However, this power of allowing a third party to maintain an appeal should be exercised with due care and caution. Persons, unconnected with the matter under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused should be checked. A strict vigilance is required to be maintained in this regard."

18 MCRC-58792-2021

20. In Lachhman Dass vs. Resham Chand Kaler and Another (2018) 3 SCC 187, an order of granting bail was set aside by the Supreme Court, observing thus:-

"11. Apart from the above, it is also important to note the legal principles governing this case. We make it clear that this case is not an appeal seeking cancellation of bail in any sense rather, this case calls for the legal sustainability of the impugned order granting bail to the accused-respondent herein. The difference between the cancellation of the bail and a legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record is a settled proposition. To clarify, there is no ground pleaded herein that a supervening event breaching bail conditions is raised. [refer to State through C.B.I. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189].

12. Having cleared this confusion, we may clarify, though seriously urged by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, that there is no warrant for cancellation of bail as there has been no breach of bail condition, yet such submission is not countenanced under the law."

21. The declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime issued by General Assembly of United Nations provides for victim to obtain redress through formal and informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Such declaration contemplates that responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by informing the victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings including allowing the views and concerns of the victims to be presented and considered at the appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are involved. Therefore, though it is the responsibility of the State to bring the accused to law but in such process the actual sufferer of crime cannot be permitted to stay outside the law and to watch the proceedings from hindsight. It will be travesty of justice if the victims of such heinous crime are denied right to address their grievances before the courts of law.

22. The judgment in Puran's case (supra) arises out of an order passed by the High Court cancelling bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge. The Court has drawn distinction when conditions of bail are being infringed such as interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the 19 MCRC-58792-2021 accused in any manner or when the cancellation of bail is sought when bail is granted by ignoring material evidence on record or a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime. Such an order was said to be against the principles of law. That was a case of an offence under Section 498 and 304- B of IPC. The Court noticed that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. The Court held that concept of setting aside unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts require such cancellation. The Court considered an argument that a third party cannot move a petition for cancellation of bail as the prosecution has not moved for cancellation. The Court held that an application for cancellation of bail is not by a total stranger but by the father of the deceased. Therefore, it was held that powers so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by an aggrieved party. The said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid judgment, which pertains to era prior to amendment in Section 372 of the Code giving right to a victim to file an appeal against the order of conviction, clearly gives right to the prosecutrix, a victim of heinous crime on her person to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.

11. Thus, this Court can always cancel the bail granted by the Sessions Court on the ground of non-consideration of material evidence.

12. The next contention of the counsel for the applicant is that earlier the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 2 were not considered by the Trial Court and he was granted bail merely on the ground that only bailable offences have been registered. The ground on which the bail was granted to the respondent No. 2 by the Sessions Court has already been reproduced. Thus, it is clear that the allegations which were levelled against the respondent No. 2 were not taken into consideration and since the police had filed charge-

sheet for the bailable offences, therefore, the Court had granted bail 20 MCRC-58792-2021 to the respondent No. 2 only on the said ground. It is true that after considering the material available on record if the Court has granted bail, then mere addition of further sections without there being any further material, would not require an accused to surrender and to go behind the bar, but in the present case, as already pointed out, nothing was considered by the Trial Court while granting bail to the respondent No. 2 by order dated 07.10.2020, by which he was granted bail merely by observing that only bailable offences have been registered against the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the Court below should have considered the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 2.

13. By the impugned order, the Court below has not given any reason for granting bail to the respondent. After considering the submissions of respected parties, the Trial Court has merely mentioned the allegations as well as the factum of grant of bail to the respondent No. 2. It was mentioned that it appears to be justified to grant bail. Non-assigning of any reason, though in short, would indicate that no mind was applied. The respondent No. 2 was allegedly carrying a firearm and is alleged to have caused injury on the left elbow of injured Ramveer. Nothing has been mentioned by the Court below as to why the respondent No. 2 is entitled for bail.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. by order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.571/2021 has held as under:-

21 MCRC-58792-2021 "11. Before considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, few decisions of this Court on how to exercise the discretionary power for grant of bail and the duty of the Appellate Court, particularly when the bail was refused by the courts below are required to be referred to and considered.

11.1 In the case of Mahipal (Supra) where the High Court released the accused on bail in a case for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and other offences recording the only contention put forth by the counsel for the accused and further recording that "taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing the opinion on merits of case, this Court deems fit just and proper to enlarge/release the accused on bail."

While setting aside the order passed by the High Court granting bail, one of us Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

11. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 CrPC to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh5 Umesh Banerjee, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms:

"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 course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. ... The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the 22 MCRC-58792-2021 severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

11.2 That thereafter this Court considered the principles that guide while assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail. This Court specifically observed and held that normally this Court does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting the bail to the accused. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. This Court further observed that the power of the appellate 23 MCRC-58792-2021 court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for cancellation of bail. It is further observed that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was a proper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. It is further observed that the test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. Thereafter this Court considered the difference and distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate court granting bail in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under:

13. The principles that guide this Court in assessing the correctness of an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting bail were succinctly laid down by this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee6 . In that case, the accused was facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Several bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court in turn allowed the bail application filed by the accused. Setting aside the order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] of the High Court, D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, held:

"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1- 2010 (Cal)] 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 the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any 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

24 MCRC-58792-2021 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.

***

10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it to be illegal."

14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case- by-case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.

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 25 MCRC-58792-2021 the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. , the accused was granted bail by the High Court [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P.7 , . In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court surveyed the precedent on the principles that guide the grant of bail. Dipak Misra, J.

"12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court."

"2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that, the deceased was driving his motorcycle, which got slipped on a sharp turn, due to which he received injuries on various parts of body including ante-mortem head injuries on account of which he died. Counsel further submits that the challan has 26 MCRC-58792-2021 already been presented in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail."

Thereafter this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case of Mahipal (Supra) the order of the High Court which was set aside by this Court insofar as it is relevant reads as under:

"2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that, the deceased was driving his motorcycle, which got slipped on a sharp turn, due to which he received injuries on various parts of body including ante-mortem head injuries on account of which he died. Counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail."

This Court disapproved such an order of grant of bail by observing that the High Court has not considered material available to the determination of whether the accused were to be enlarged on bail. This court also further observed that it is a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. The relevant observations made by this court while setting aside the order passed by the High Court in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 are as under:

"23. The High Court has erred in not considering material relevant to the determination of whether the accused were to be enlarged on bail. The order of the High Court enlarging the accused on bail is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

27 MCRC-58792-2021

24. There is another reason why the judgment of the learned Single Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. In the present case, the assessment by the High Court is essentially contained in a single para which reads: (Rajesh Kumar case [Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 5197] , SCC OnLine Raj para 4) "4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail."

25. Merely recording "having perused the record"

and "on the facts and circumstances of the case" does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion."

It is further observed by this Court that where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that form the decision, there is a presumption of non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. It is further observed that where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why the bail should be granted.

12. At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (Supra) is also required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court considered in great detail the considerations which govern the grant of bail, after referring to the decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay (Supra); Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (Supra); Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P.8 ; and the decision of this Court 28 MCRC-58792-2021 in Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav. After considering the law laid down by this Court on grant of bail, in the aforesaid decisions, in paragraphs 20, 21, 36 & 37 it is observed and held as under:

"20. The first aspect of the case which stares in the face is the singular absence in the judgment of the High Court to the nature and gravity of the crime. The incident which took place on 9 May 2020 resulted in five homicidal deaths. The nature of the offence is a circumstance which has an important bearing on the grant of bail. The orders of the High Court are conspicuous in the absence of any awareness or elaboration of the serious nature of the offence. The perversity lies in the failure of the High Court to consider an important circumstance which has a bearing on whether bail should be granted. In the two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan Singh, the nature of the crime was recorded as "one of the basic considerations"

which has a bearing on the grant or denial of bail. The considerations which govern the grant of bail were elucidated in the judgment of this Court without attaching an exhaustive nature or character to them. This emerges from the following extract:

"4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

21. This Court further laid down the standard for overturning an order granting bail in the following terms:

"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order 29 MCRC-58792-2021

-- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained."

xxx xxx xxx

36. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC 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. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.8 in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for nonapplication of mind. This Court observed:

"8. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications. Yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied, as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

9. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence..."

(1) The facts of the case;

(2) The nature of allegations;

(3) Gravity of offences; and (4) Role attributed to the accused."

13. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the 30 MCRC-58792-2021 aforesaid decisions on grant of bail, to the facts of the case on hand; the impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail cannot be sustained. Except narrating the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the public prosecutor and the complainant there is no independent application of mind by the High Court and as such no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court releasing the accused on bail, that too in a case where the accused are facing the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and the other offences, referred to hereinabove, in which one person was killed and another person - Vikram Singh was seriously injured. As observed hereinabove, the deceased was having 26 injuries and the injured sustained 11 injuries by blunt and sharp weapons. The order passed by the High Court contained a single para which reads as under:

"Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application."

13.1 Such an order has been disapproved by this Court time and again. The High Court has not at all taken into consideration the facts of the case; the nature of allegations; gravity of offences and role attributed to the accused. As a matter of fact, there is no discussion or analysis of circumstances at all.

13.2 The observations made by the High Court "considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application" does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. The impugned order passed by the High Court can be said to be perverse and suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant factors to be considered while grant of bail and therefore the interference of this Court is warranted.

15. If the order passed by the Court below is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumer Singh (supra), it is clear that no reasons have been assigned by the Court below for grant of bail.

16. Accordingly, the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No.289/2020 is set aside.

31 MCRC-58792-2021 Respondent No. 2 is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court.

17. The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.03.14 11:11:55 +05'30'

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court