SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1061

2010 (7) Supreme 674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar — Appellant(s)
versus
Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4590 of 2010)
Decided on : 29-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Granting bail without adverting to the basic principles would render the order illegal.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Factors to be considered while considering bail application restated – Granting bail without adverting to these factors would render the order illegal. (Para 11)

        (2005) 8 SCC 21; (2001) 4 SCC 280; (2009) 14 SCC 286; (2002) 3 SCC 598; (2001) 4 SCC 224; (2005) 3 SCC 143; (2002) 9 SCC 364; (2005) 7 SCC 326 – Relied upon

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting three bail applications – Charges not yet framed – High Coiurt ought not to have granted bail. (Para 13)

        (2004) 7 SCC 528; (2003) 1 SCC 15 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. Ms. Mallika Sen, a widow was found strangulated at her residence on 2nd July, 2009. The appellant, who is the brother of the victim, lodged a written complaint at the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Section 302, IPC.

        2. The accused was arrested.

        3. The accused filed several bail applications before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate which were all dismissed.

        4. The accused preferred a bail application, before the High Court under Section 439 of the Code which was allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. —

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against order dated 11 th January, 2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.M. No. 272 of 2010, granting regular bail to respondent No. 1 in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”), under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

3. The accused is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) for allegedly committing the murder of one Ms. Mallika Sen. Respondent No.2 is the State of West Bengal.

4. Very briefly stated the facts material for the adjudication of this appeal can be stated thus:

Ms. Mallika Sen, a 57 years old widow was found strangulated at her residence on 2nd July, 2009. The appellant, who is the brother of the victim, lodged a written complaint at the Rampurhat Police Station, on the basis of which FIR No. 111/09 dated 2nd July, 2009 was registered under Section 302, IPC.

It has been alleged that a neighbour of late Ms. Sen, one Mr. Somenath Dutta, saw the accused rushing out of the residence of the deceased, around the time the incident took place. The accused was arrested on 13th July, 2009 and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafter, on the same day, the police filed a forwarding report in the said court, inter alia, requesting for holding of a Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) of the accused. The T.I.P. was conducted, but perhaps the accused could not be identified. However, in the second T.I.P., the accused was duly identified by the aforesaid witness.

5. The accused filed several bail applications before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate which were all dismissed vide orders dated 7th September, 2009, 16th September, 2009 and 19th September, 2009.

6. On 7th October, 2009, charge-sheet No. 138 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC was filed against the accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

7. Having failed to secure bail from the Sessions Court, the accused preferred a bail application, being C.R.M. No. 272 of 2010 before the High Court under Section 439 of the Code. As stated above, by the impugned order, the High Court allowed the application, and granted bail to the accused by a short order, observing thus:

“Having regard to the nature of the alleged crime, we do not think that interest of investigation requires or (sic) justifies further detention of the present petitioner at this stage.”

8. Hence the present appeal by the complainant.

9. Mr. Nagender Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, contended that the said order being non-speaking, deserves to be set aside in light of the decision of this Court in Masroor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.1 (2009) 14 SCC 286.

Learned counsel submitted that the High Court has failed to take into consideration the manner in which a hapless old lady was done to death as also the fact that the accused had been duly identified by an independent witness.

10. Per contra, Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the accused, contended that the case against the accused was false, as is evident from the fact that the witness had failed to identify the accused in the first T.I.P. Learned counsel contended that the accused had been arrested on a mere suspicion, and in light of the fact that he has not misused the bail, the impugned order needs to be affirmed.

11. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among oth






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top