Dhuk Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & ANR. [2009] INSC 251 (9 February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7460 of 2007) Dhuk Singh .....Appellant Versus State
of Rajasthan & Anr. ....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the grant of bail to respondent No.2 who had applied for
bail during the pendency of the proceedings relating to FIR No.20/2007 Police Station,
Syala, District Jalore.
3.
A
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed the bail
application. The High Court stated that the question as to whether respondent
No.2 was to be added as an accused is the subject matter of examination by the
High Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 169 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code'). The High Court did not examine the
case on merits and on that score alone accepted the prayer for bail. It needs to
be noted that learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, had rejected the bail application
on considering the nature of allegations against the present respondent No.2.
4.
The
informant had filed the present appeal questioning grant of bail to respondent
No.2. It is submitted that contrary to the view expressed by this Court in a
large number of cases, without indicating any reason the order granting bail
was passed. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of the appellant.
On the contrary learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the scope
and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was elucidated by this Court in Dharam Pal
& Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2004 (13) SCC 9) and, therefore, the
High Court was justified in granting bail.
5.
The
parameters to be kept in view while dealing with an application for bail have
been indicated by this Court in several cases; for example Anwari Begum v. Sher
Mohd. (2005 (7) SCC 325), Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004 (7) SCC 525), Anil
Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P. (2006 (9) SCC 425) and State represented by
Inspector of Police, T.N. v. Eslian @ 2 Jothi Basu (2006 (9) SCC 785). It has
been held that the court considering the bail application has to consider among
other circumstances the following:
(i) the nature of
accusations and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature
of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
6.
In
that view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and
remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say that the High
Court shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order.
7.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
..........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
