Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahalad S/O Ranjeet Singh vs Mohan Singh And Anr. on 4 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(0)MPLJ53
ORDER K.K. Varma, J.
1. This order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision Case No. 23 of 1990, Prahlad v. Kamal Singh, Patram and the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Applicant Prahalad is brother of deceased Guman Singh, whose murder led to registration of Crime No. 112/89 (P. S. Chinore) Under Sections 302, 394, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code in which present non-applicants Mohan Singh, Kamal Singh and Patram were arrested in the first week of December 1989.
3. Applicant Mohan Singh's first application was dismissed by Shri S. K. Jain, the then Sessions Judge, Gwalior after the application was not pressed before him. By an order passed on 30-1-1990, the learned Sessions Judge admitted Mohan Singh to bail in bail application No. 205/90. On the same day, the learned Judge admitted non-applicants Kamal Singh and Patram to bail on their first bail application.
4. Applicant Prahalad's learned counsel, Shri V. K. Saxena and the learned Dy. Government Advocate, Shri M. M. Qureshi, have submitted that the non-recording of reasons by the learned Sessions Judge in two orders in question, makes the orders interferable in revision. Shri Saxena has relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 CAR 44 SC. In that case, it was observed at paragraph 18 as follows :
".... that is to say, law requires that in non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, reasons have to be recorded for releasing a person on bail, clearly disclosing how discretion has been exercised in that, behalf."
5. The aforementioned observations were made with reference to Sub-section (4) of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. Nevertheless, recording of reasons in serious questions taken to a' Court of law is the only guarantee that the Court has applied its mind to the material relevant to the question.
7. In fact, at paragraph 24, the Supreme Court went on to say in Gurcharan Singh's case as follows :
"... The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1), Criminal Procedure Code of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, of repeating the offence, of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case, of tampering with witnesses, the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out."
8. The impugned orders do not show that the learned Judge addressed himself to the questions at hand from any of the angles posited above.
9. In Union of India v. M. L. Capoor and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 87, it was pointed out at paragraph 28 as follows :
".... Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown-to be manifestly just and reasonable."
10. Thus, in a given case where the subject involves a serious offence, it is all the more imperative that the judicial order must indicate, at any rate, briefly the reason which impelled the Court towards the decision rendered by it. In appropriate cases non-recording of reasons may indicate that the order was not just and proper. After all, in serious matters, specially in criminal cases, the public is also entitled to know the reason that impelled a particular decision. It is only by furnishing reasons that the Court of law reassures all coneerned that there has been application of mind to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I am, therefore, of the view that in particular circumstances of the case, the impugned orders ex facie betray total non-application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge.
11. It is an appropriate stage to mention that in case of Mohan Singh, it was the second bail application. The first bail application had been dismissed only about a week before on being not pressed. It was, therefore, all the more essential for the learned Judge to have recorded some reasons for granting the bail.
12. In both the cases not only no reasons were given but also no facts and circumstances of the case were stated in the orders: that makes the situation all the more worse because the Judge simply wrote that he had considered the police case diary and heard counsel for the parties, but that is no guarantee that he had applied his mind to what he had read and heard.
13. Shri P. N. Mishra has submitted that no case has been made out for cancellation of the, bail granted to the non-applicants. He has relied on Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code and also the ruling of the Supreme Court case Bhagirath Singh v. The State of Gujarat, 1984 CAR 111 SC.
14. However, the facts of the case and the present case are different. In the case before me, the order has been impugned as an improper order. There being no prayer here for cancellation of bail Under Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code, the ruling in Bhagirath's case does not help, the accused persons as per arguments advanced on behalf of the accused persons.
15. In the result, I hold that the impugned orders were improper and unjust because they had the effect of granting bail in a murder case without stating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reasons for granting bail.
16. The two orders are quashed. Non-applicants Kamal Singh, Patram and Mohan Singh shall surrender before the committing Magistrate by 8-5-1990.
17. The bail applications decided on 30-1-1990 shall be reheard by Shri Ganesh Singh, the present District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior after the accused persons have surrendered to their custoday. The learned Sessions Judge shall hear the accused persons and the State afresh and allow them to urge subsequent events in the matter of grant of bail.