2009(2) Supreme 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
State of Maharashtra Etc. — Appellant
versus
Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle Etc. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 269-270 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6687-6688 of 2008)
Decided on : 11-02-2009
(2002) 3 SCC 598; (2001) 6 SCC 338; JT 2004 (3) SC 442 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated. (Para 10)
(2004)7 SCC 528 – Relied upon.
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Conditions laid down under Section 437 (1)(i) are sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. (Para 12)
(2001)6 SCC 338; SLP (Crl.) No. 2861 of 2007 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The accused persons are facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 18 & 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3&4 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 353 read with Sections 34 & 120B of the IPC.
2. The High Court granted bail subject to certain conditions.
Finding of the Court :
High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view while granting bail.
Result : Appeal allowed partly.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, granting bail to the respondents. The accused persons are facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 18 & 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short the ‘Act’) and Sections 3&4 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the ‘Arms Act’) and Section 353 read with Sections 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The High Court referred to the circumstances highlighted by the parties and came to hold that the accusations/imputation do not constitute the charged offences. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has misconceived the scope and ambit of the provisions and misinterpreted the ingredients of the offence and came to an abrupt conclusion that no offence is made out. This will seriously prejudice the trial. No reason has been indicated as to why the High Court came to the conclusion, that too abruptly that no offence was made out so far as the charged offences are concerned.
4. If the versions contained in the affidavits opposing the bail applications are taken into account the offences are made out. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court. It is stated that the imputations do not constitute and even do not describe the commission of offence under Sections 10,13,18 and 20 of the Act or other offences alleged against them.
5. It is seen that the charge sheet does not comprise of statements of witnesses as to exact involvement of the accused persons, describing involvement to correspond to the ingredients of Sections 10, 13, 18, 20 of the Act and other offence is alleged against the applicants.
6. The High Court found that on reading of the charge sheet, nothing is disclosed as to what are the imputations of acts done by these applicants under Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of the Act and other offences. Non of the ingredients of those Sections are described as committed by these persons. All that is asserted is that except that these accused had a meeting with accused Nos.1 and 2 and an inference that they are associated with the accused Nos.1 and 2. There are no other imputations.
7. By order dated 19.9.2008 a Bench of this court has directed stay of the impugned order. It is stated that the accused persons were sent to custody in view of the order and are presently in custody.
8. While dealing with an application for bail, 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.
9. Any order de hors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.1 [(2002) 3 SCC 598], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. Etc.2 [(2001) 6 SCC 338)] and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.3 [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].
10. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted above, at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.