2008 Supreme(SC) 139

2008(1) Supreme 582
Supreme Court of india
Ashok Bhan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala — Petitioner
versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 198 of 2008
Decided on 29-01-2008

Important Points
Mere fact that accused had undergone certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle accused to being enlarged on bail, nor fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging accused on bail when gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused during period he was on bail.
A detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused. Only a brief examination is to be done to satisfy about the facts and circumstances or otherwise of a prima facie case.
Accused not misused his liberty while on temporary bail twice by itself is no ground to grant bail in a murder case especially when he was allegedly involved in a subsequent case of murder.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Bail — Grant of-Appeals against orders granting bail to respondents in two cases relating to offence of Murder — Reasons given by Judge granting bail to Respondent in 2nd case in impugned order held untenable — Respondent not misused his liberty while on temporary bail twice by itself was no ground to grant bail in a murder case especially when he was allegedly involved in a subsequent case of murder - Apart from present two cases of murder, respondent had been named in 10 other criminal cases in last 25 years or so, out of which 5 cases were under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder and another under Section 302 IPC for committing murder – Mere fact that accused had undergone certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle accused to being enlarged on bail, nor fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging appellant on bail when gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by accused during period he was on bail — When basic requirements necessary for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court, Court would be justified in canceling the bail – Instantly three witnesses, who had allegedly seen occurrence, unequivocally in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that respondent, was present at time of occurrence and he had fired with his gun - Prima facie a case for grant of bail was not made out - High Court had completely ignored general principles, for grant of bail in a heinous crime of Commission of murder in which sentence, if convicted, is death or life imprisonment – In second case, another Judge had granted bail by impugned order which ran into 22 pages — Findings recorded therein touched upon merits of case — Judge proceeded as if an order of acquittal was being passed - A detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused - Only a brief examination is to be done to satisfy about the facts and circumstances or otherwise of a prima facie case — Taking the overall view of entire matter and in particular to antecedents of Respondents, alleged statements made by witnesses, who were present at spot, to police and admitted enmity between parties held that it was not a fit case to grant bail to respondents in this case as well — Impugned orders granting bail to respondents in both cases set aside. (Paras 20 to 24, 27 to 29)

       [(2005) 8 SCC 21] relied upon.

       Bail – Grant of — While considering application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, Position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

       [(2005) 8 SCC 21] relied upon. (Para 25)

       Bail – Cancellation of - Object underlying cancellation of bail is to protect Fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime- Once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation.

       [(2005) 3 SCC 143] — relied upon. (Para 26)

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Present Appeals has been filed herein in the instant case against orders granting bail to respondents in two cases relating to offence of Murder.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that when basic requirements necessary for grant of bail are completely ignored by High Court, this Court would be justified in canceling the bail. Instantly three witnesses, who had allegedly seen occurrence, unequivocally in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that respondent, was present at time of occurrence and he had fired with his gun. Prima facie a case for grant of bail was not made out. High Court had completely ignored general principles, for grant of bail in a heinous crime of Commission of murder in which the sentence, if convicted, is death or life imprisonment. In second case, another Judge had granted bail by impugned order which ran into 22 pages. Findings recorded therein touched upon merits of case. Judge proceeded as if an order of acquittal was being passed. A detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice is caused. Only a brief examination is to be done to satisfy about the facts and circumstances or otherwise of a prima facie case. Taking the overall view of entire matter and in particular to antecedents of respondent alleged statements made by witnesses, who were present at spot, to police and admitted enmity between parties (which is a double edged weapon to commit crime as well as to falsely implicate), held that it was not a fit case to grant bail to respondents. Impugned orders granting bail to respondents set aside.

       Result: Appeal allowed.