IMPORTANT POINT
Fact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging accused on bail when gravity of offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 439-Appeal against order granting bail to accused-Respondent accused was facing trial on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder-Bail granted by High Court in eighth bail application primarily on consideration of fact that accused was in jail for long and that trial did not appear likely to conclude in near future-Approach of High Court was not correct and justified-Law in regard to grant or refusal of bail-Grounds recorded by High Court would not be sufficient for enlarging accused on bail when gravity of offence alleged was severe and there were allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused during period he was on bail-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are,
        (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
        (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
        (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge; (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002 (3) SCC 598) and Puran Vs. Rambilas and another (2001 (6) SCC 338). (Para 10)
       In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail. (Para 13)
       Though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the impugned order we do not see any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into consideration that at least on four occasions order refusing bail has been affirmed by this Court and subsequently when the High Court did grant bail, this Court by its order dated 26th July, 2000 cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order. From the impugned order, we do not notice any indication of the fact that the High Court took note of the grounds which persuaded this Court to cancel the bail. Such approach of the High Court, in our opinion, is violative of the principle of binding nature of judgments of superior court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and in effect tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective the principles enunciated therein which have a binding character. (Para 19)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court emphasized that the mere fact of an accused having undergone a certain period of incarceration or the likelihood of trial delay alone is insufficient grounds for granting bail, especially when the offence is severe and there are allegations of witness tampering during bail periods (!) (!) .
The law mandates that courts exercise their discretion judiciously when granting bail, providing reasons for their decision, particularly in serious offences. Orders granting bail without such reasons are considered to lack proper application of mind (!) (!) .
When an application for bail is made after previous applications have been rejected, the court must consider the reasons for earlier rejections and record any new grounds for granting bail. Failure to do so can lead to orders being deemed improper (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of considering allegations of witness threats and witness hostility, especially when witnesses turn hostile after bail is granted, as these are significant factors in bail decisions (!) (!) .
The court noted that the granting of bail should not ignore prior binding judgments or orders, and courts must adhere to the principles and findings of higher courts, especially when such orders have been explicitly issued in related proceedings (!) (!) .
It was clarified that the conditions for bail under certain sections are mandatory and that courts should not interpret statutory provisions as allowing unrestricted discretion without considering the specific legal requirements (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was not justified given the serious allegations, the potential for witness tampering, and the failure to properly consider prior orders and relevant circumstances. The order was set aside, and the accused was remanded into custody (!) .
The decision underscores the principle that bail should not be granted lightly in serious cases and that detailed reasoning and adherence to legal standards are essential in such decisions (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further elaboration or assistance.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant in CBI Case No. RC 12(S)/98/SIC.IV/New Delhi. According to the said complaint, the first respondent herein conspired with the other accused named in the said complaint to murder his brother Ajit Sarkar who was then a MLA from Purnea constituency in the State of Bihar. The incident leading to the murder of said Ajit Sarkar took place on 14.6.1998 when said Ajit Sarkar was returning in his official car with 3 others after attending a Panchayat. It is the prosecution case that some other accused named in the complaint followed the car in which said Ajit Sarkar was travelling on two motorbikes and attacked Ajit Sarkar, his friends Asfaq Alam, Hamender Sharma and Ajit Sarkar s bodyguard Ramesh Oraon with sophisticated weapons consequent to which said Ajit Sarkar, Asfaq Alam and Hamender Sharma died and Ramesh Oraon was seriously injured. A complaint in this regard was registered with the jurisdictional Police at the instance of the appellant and the original investigation was initiated by the said Police. However, when it was noticed that the said jurisdictional Police were not conducting proper investigation, the same was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which registered a fresh case. During the course of investigation the CBI found that in view of political rivalry between the deceased and the first respondent herein, the latter entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other co-accused to eliminate said Ajit Sarkar and pursuant to the said conspiracy on 12.6.1998 the first respondent held a meeting with co-accused Harish Chaudhary and others in Siliguri. It is also found that the first respondent instructed some of the co-accused to falsify certain records to create an alibi for himself and Harish Chaudhary for their absence from the place and the time of proposed attack and he himself left for New Delhi from Bagdogra. The further case of the prosecution is that later on the first respondent from Delhi instructed the other co-accused Rajan Tiwari over the phone to eliminate Ajit Sarkar by all means and he also assured the said Rajan Tiwari that he would provide the required fire-arms through co-accused Harish Chaudhary. Pursuant to the said assurance, the prosecution alleges that on the date of the incident i.e. on 14.6.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. said Rajan Tiwari armed with an AK-47 rifle, Harish Chaudhary with a .455 revolver and another accused Amar Yadav armed with a .38 revolver waylaid the car in which Ajit Sarkar was travelling at a place near Ankur Hotel in Subhash Nagar and in that attack, as stated above, 3 persons including Ajit Sarkar died and his bodyguard Ramesh Oraon suffered serious injuries. During the course of investigation, some of the accused persons including the first respondent were arrested and a chargesheet was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, XI at Patna in Sessions Trial No. 976 of 1999.

3. From the records, it is seen that after his arrest the first respondent had made a number of applications for grant of bail pending trial and most of such attempts had failed and it is by the impugned order, the High Court allowed the application of the first respondent and directed his release on bail on his furnishing a bail-bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the High Court enlarging the said respondent on bail, the brother of the deceased Ajit Sarkar is before us in this appeal. The second respondent the CBI has supported the appellant in this appeal.

5. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the crime committed by the appellant is so heinous and gruesome that that by itself should have been sufficient to reject the bail application of the first respondent. He pointed out from t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 310

IMPORTANT POINTFact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging accused on bail when gravity of offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Fact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging accused on bail when gravity of offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused.