Subhash Chandra Singh
Vs. Dheemant Singh & ANR. [2009] INSC 803 (20 April 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP( Crl.) No. 3246 of 2008) Subhash Chandra Singh ..Appellant
versus Dheemant Singh & Anr. ..Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondent No.1.
The appeal is by the
father of the Shobhna (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was
married to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the death took place within
seven years of the marriage and it was unnatural death. The High Court by a
practically non-reasoned order granted bail. It is pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant that no reason has been indicated for directing grant
of bail and even the conclusions are contradictory in terms.
3.
Learned
counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the bail was
granted on 30th October, 2007. There is no allegation that the accused
respondent No. 1 has misused the liberty after release on bail.
The charge sheet has
already been submitted and the investigation is over.
The accused was in
custody for more than five months.
4.
Even
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.
5.
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. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for
bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before
granting bail, they are:
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 of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
3. Prima facie
satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
6.
Any
order dehors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as was noted by
this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC
598], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. [(2001) 6 SCC 338)] and in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC
442].
7.
The
above position was highlighted by this Court in Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohd.
(2005(7) SCC 326).
8.
As
rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court's
order is a bundle of confusion. On one hand it is noted that there was no
dispute that the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage and
that it was unnatural death. Having said so, it is not understood as to how the
High Court observed that the provisions of Section 113(B) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act') are not applicable and this is
not a case punishable under Section 304 B IPC. That being so we set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
consideration and disposal by a reasoned order.
9.
The
Appeal is allowed.
...........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J.
Back
