Chamadia Vs. Abdul & Anr  Insc 68 (4 February 2004)
Hegde & B.P.Singh
out of SLP (Crl.)No.2814 of 2003) SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
learned counsel for the parties.
appellant herein who is the complainant in Criminal Case No.402 of 2002
registered with Jamnagar Police Station, Gujarat, is challenging the impugned order of the High Court, whereby the High
Court allowed a criminal misc. application filed by the first respondent herein
and enlarged him on bail on conditions mentioned therein.
the case of the appellant herein that the first respondent and some other
accused persons attacked the appellant and some others on 14th of August, 2002
at about 10.30 a.m. in village Bedi near Jamnagar, consequent to which attack one of
the victims Anwar Ala Chamadiya died and others suffered injuries. In regard to
this incident, the appellant filed the above mentioned criminal complaint which
was registered by the Jamnagar Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 324, 325, 147, 148 and 149 IPC as also under Section 25(1) of the
Arms Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. On coming to know of the
death of above said Anwar Ala Chamadiya, the Investigating Agency added Section
302 IPC also. On being arrested on the above charges, the first respondent
herein made an application for grant of bail on 25th of September, 2002 before
the learned Sessions Judge. The said bail application was opposed by the State
wherein the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit that this respondent was
involved in 7 other cases and he had committed this present crime while he was
on bail in those cases. Further, he has also been threatening witnesses,
consequent to which in one of the earlier cases bail granted to him was
cancelled by the Sessions Court for violating the conditions of the bail. After
hearing the parties including the appellant herein, the application filed by
the first respondent for grant of bail in the present case came to be rejected.
the said order of rejection of his application for grant of bail, the first
respondent preferred a criminal misc. petition before the High Court of Gujarat
at Ahmedabad which petition came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 31st
of January, 2003. The High Court while allowing the said application recorded
"the parties do not press for reasoned order". On that basis without
assigning any reason why a bail refused by the Sessions Court by a reasoned
order should be reversed by the High Court, it proceeded to allow the
application by imposing certain conditions. It is against the said order of the
High Court, the appellant, who is a complainant in this case, has preferred
this appeal seeking the cancellation of the bail.
P.Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that all
the conditions imposed by the High Court in the impugned order were also
imposed by the courts which granted the first respondent the bail in the other
criminal cases and the first respondent inspite of such conditions has violated
the same with impunity. He pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge while
rejecting the prayer for bail had noticed these cases, but the High Court did
not take the same into consideration.
also pointed out from another judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar made on 20th of May, 2003 the court
had noticed that this respondent has violated the conditions imposed on him
while granting the bail in the said case, hence, has cancelled the bail. The
learned counsel also pointed out that the present crime from which this appeal
arises is a crime involving an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the
said offence was committed while the said respondent was on bail in another
this fact clearly indicates that this respondent if permitted to be on bail the
life of the witnesses including that of the complainant is likely to be in
danger. He submitted that while the trial court noticed all these facts, the
High Court obviously did not consider these facts and proceeded to grant bail
to this respondent in a mechanical manner.
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent very seriously opposed the
prayer for cancellation of bail. He submitted that there has been a continuing
rivalry between the complainant and his family members on one side and this
respondent both on the ground of business as also on the ground of politics,
therefore, a series of false cases are being registered against this respondent
with a view to keep him in custody. He submitted that the High Court after
hearing the parties at length considered it a fit case to enlarge this
respondent on bail and this court ought not to interfere with the said order.
counsel appearing for the State supported the contentions of the appellant.
the material on record, we notice that there are atleast 7 other cases pending
against the first respondent involving offences under Section 3 & 4 of
TADA, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 506(2), 325, 324, 307,
147, 326, 504 etc. of IPC, apart from offences under the Prohibition Act. It is
also an admitted fact that the complaint in the present case is made against
the first respondent and others when first respondent was on bail granted to
him in other cases. It is also an admitted fact that in one of the cases bail
granted to the first respondent has been cancelled by the learned Sessions
Judge on the ground that he has violated the conditions of bail. We are
informed at the bar subsequently he has come out on bail in that case also. Be
that as it may, from the nature of allegation made in this case which involves
the death of one of the victims and from the nature of weapon used in the said
crime and in the background of the fact that admittedly atleast 7 other cases
involving very serious charges against this respondent are pending trial, some
of them committed after obtaining bail in other cases tentatively atleast
indicates for the purpose of considering the merits of this appeal that the
first respondent herein has violated the conditions of bail granted in the
earlier cases and in the event of he being enlarged on bail there is every
likelihood of he interfering with the investigation of this case, threatening
the witnesses and may even go to the extent of causing physical harm to the
complainant and others. Having perused the material on record and the judgment
of the Sessions Court canceling the bail in another case, we are satisfied that
this is a fit case in which the bail granted to the first respondent by the
High Court should be cancelled and we intend doing so.
before concluding, we must advert to another aspect of this case which has
caused some concern to us. In the recent past, we had several occasions to
notice that the High Courts by recording the concessions shown by the counsel
in the criminal proceedings refrain from assigning any reason even in orders by
which it reverses the orders of the lower courts. In our opinion, this is not
proper if such orders are appealable, be it on the ground of concession shown
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties or on the ground that
assigning of elaborate reasons might prejudice the future trial before the
lower courts. The High Court should not, unless for very good reasons desist
from indicating the grounds on which their orders are based because when the
matters are brought up in appeal, the court of appeal has every reason to know
the basis on which the impugned order has been made. It may be that while
concurring with the lower courts' order, it may not be necessary for the said
appellate court to assign reasons but that is not so while reversing such
orders of the lower courts. It may be convenient for the said court to pass
orders without indicating the grounds or basis but it certainly is not
convenient for the court of appeal while considering the correctness of such
impugned orders. The reasons need not be very detailed or elaborate, lest it
may cause prejudice to the case of the parties, but must be sufficiently indicative
of the process of reasoning leading to the passing of the impugned order. The
need for delivering a reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be
complied with in all appealable orders. This Court in a somewhat similar
situation has deprecated the practice of non-speaking orders in the case of
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (AIR 1984 SC 444), that
was a case where the High Court in a detention order while allowing the
challenge to the detention order directed the release of the detenue before it
could give a reasoned order.
such a practice was deprecated by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Whereas
in the instant case it is a final order reversing the order of the learned
Sessions Judge wherein the High Court thought it not necessary to give the
reasons on the ground that the counsel appearing for the parties did not press
for a reasoned order.
when the matter was taken up for hearing, we had no benefit of the reasons
which persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order. Hence, we have
proceeded to decide the appeal on merit based on the material available on
record and the arguments addressed before us, from which we have come to the
conclusion that the impugned order ought to be set aside. Though a prayer was
made on behalf of the first respondent that the matter be remanded to the High
Court to facilitate it to pass a reasoned order, on facts of this case, we
think it proper to decide the issue before us ourselves without prolonging the
proceeding any further by remanding it to the High Court. But we do record our
disapproval of the practice followed by the High Court reflected in the
impugned order and hope the same will not be repeated.
the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The bail granted to the first
respondent is cancelled. He is directed to surrender within a week from today.
On failure to do so, the concerned police are directed to take necessary steps
to arrest the first respondent.
expression of opinion found in this order is purely tentative and for the
disposal of this appeal. The same shall not, in any manner, prejudice the
parties in the trial of the pending cases.
appeal is allowed.