Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.61 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Brijmani Devi vs Pappu Kumar on 17 December, 2021
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497
: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of
this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual
order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused,
observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar,
(2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means
and standing of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or State and similar other
7
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the
words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is
a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence
in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking
through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising
discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same
judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be
granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning,
this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order,
but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An
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 do always vary
from case to case. While placement of the accused in the
society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be
a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the
same should always be coupled with other circumstances
warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is
one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail --
the 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." (emphasis supplied)
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr on 12 March, 2004
In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that
although it is established that a court considering a bail
application cannot undertake a detailed examination of
evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the
case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie
reasons justifying the grant of bail.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the
said order would suffer from the vice of non-application
of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order
granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors
which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant
bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order 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:
Nethra vs State Of Karnataka on 12 May, 2022
12. The petitioner is a woman. Section 480 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita (BNSS) provides that the Court may
10
direct a person accused of or suspected of the commission of any
non-bailable offence be released on bail if such person is a child,
a woman, or is sick or infirm. This provision applies to a person
brought before the Court other than the High Court or Court of
Session, but the Courts have to keep this special provision in
mind while considering the bail application of persons falling in
the categories mentioned in Section 480 of BNSS. It was laid
down by the Karnataka High Court in Nethra vs State of Karnataka
(12.05.2022 - KARHC): MANU/KA/2055/2022 that a woman can be
released on bail even in case of murder because of special
provisions under Section 437 of CrPC. It was observed:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Velladurai vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 14 September, 2021
14. It was asserted in the FIR that the child committed
suicide due to harassment and the beatings given to him. It was
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Velladurai v. State,
(2022) 17 SCC 523 that the mere quarrel on the date of the
incident does not constitute the abetment to suicide.