Back
Supreme Court of India
AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Kanwar Singh Meena
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1662 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.155 of 2012]
Decided On : 16-10-2012
Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 439(2) -Bail-Cancellation of-While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) ,primary considerations which weigh with court are whether accused is likely to tamper with evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with due course of justice or evade due course of justice-High Court or Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice- If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to question of grant of bail to accused, High Court or Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail (Paras 10)
Facts of the Case :
An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 of IPC against accused on a complaint filed by appellant herein in the instant case. An Order was passed by High Court releasing accused on bail.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
High Court expressed no opinion as to why it was releasing accused on bail. It was imperative for High Court to do so. Evidence on record showed that accused made an effort to influence the investigation. Order passed by High Court releasing accused involved in a heinous crime on bail, ignoring relevant material, was legally not tenable. It suffered from serious infirmities. High Court had exercised its discretionary power in an arbitrary and casual manner. Assuming that accused was not likely to flee from justice or after release on bail he had not tried to tamper with evidence, was no reason why a legally infirm and untenable order passed in arbitrary exercise of discretion releasing accused involved in a gruesome crime on bail could be allowed to stand. In the interest of justice, impugned order granting bail to accused was quashed .Appeal was disposed of
Result : Appeal disposed of
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The High Court's order releasing the accused on bail was found to be legally infirm because it ignored relevant material indicating the accused's prima facie involvement in a heinous crime. The order was passed arbitrarily and without proper consideration of vital evidence, including statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code that suggest involvement in the crime (!) .
The investigation revealed that the accused attempted to influence the investigation, and there was evidence suggesting pressure exerted by the accused's brother, who is an IPS officer. This fact was not adequately considered by the High Court, which contributed to the order's infirmity (!) .
The order was criticized for not discussing or analyzing the key features of the prosecution case, merely referencing submissions made by counsel without detailed discussion or reasoning. This lack of reasoning rendered the bail order legally unsustainable (!) .
The Court emphasized that the primary considerations for canceling bail include the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, interfering with the course of justice, or fleeing. Orders granting bail that ignore relevant evidence or rely on irrelevant material can be legally challenged and set aside (!) .
The Court highlighted that the accused had been involved in a serious crime, and releasing him on bail could adversely affect the trial proceedings and the interests of justice. Therefore, the order granting bail was quashed, and the police were directed to arrest the accused and proceed with the trial without delay (!) .
The Court directed the trial court to frame charges within a month and to conclude the trial at the earliest, ensuring that justice is not delayed and that the case proceeds independently of any preliminary observations (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that courts must exercise their discretion in granting or canceling bail based on relevant, admissible evidence and legal principles, avoiding arbitrary or casual exercise of judicial discretion, especially in cases involving serious offenses (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
Judgment :-
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the brother of one Purna Singh Meena. On 20/5/2009, he lodged a complaint in respect of murder of Purna Singh Meena (“the deceased”) against Khushi Ram Meena, who is respondent 2 herein and five others at Gandhi Nagar Police Station, District Jaipur City (East), which was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). By the impugned order, the Rajasthan High Court released Khushi Ram Meena (“the accused”) on bail. The appellant has challenged the said order in this appeal.
3. The grievance of the appellant as stated by his counsel Mr. Lekh Raj Rehalia is that the High Court committed a grave error in releasing the accused on bail. According to him the High Court ignored the well established principles which guide the courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail. It is inter alia contended that the High Court overlooked extremely vital evidence collected by the investigating agency and, without assigning any reasons, it released the accused on bail. The High Court failed to notice that there is more than prima facie case against the accused and that the brother of the accused who is an IPS Officer is trying to exert pressure on the investigating officers. It is submitted that the High Court’s order being perverse must be set aside and the accused must be directed to be taken in custody.
4. Mr. Ajay Vir Singh, learned counsel for respondent 1-State supported the appellant. He relied on the affidavit of Mr. Yogesh Dadhich, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur in support of his submissions. He also drew our attention to an extract from the relevant station diary which indicates that the brother of the accused tried to pressurize the investigating agency.
5. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused submitted that though the High Court has not assigned any reasons for releasing the accused on bail, it has made a reference to various important features of the matter. The High Court has observed that the information was received by the police at 6.10 a.m. on 20/5/2009 on mobile; however, no FIR was registered immediately; that the FIR came to be filed at 3.15 p.m. on 20/5/2009; that though the investigation was transferred to CID (CB) on 5/6/2009, the same officer continued the investigation and got the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) on 10/6/2009; that when the matter was investigated by CID (CB), the factual report of investigation was submitted by Sandeep Singh and Rajesh Sharma which reveals that the accused was not involved in this case; that the location of the mobile of the accused as per the investigation was at Sikar and that the trial court had rejected the application filed by the investigating agency to declare the accused as absconder. The High Court also considered the fact that the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the High Court. Counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed after taking all the above vital features into account and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any non application of mind. Counsel submitted that each of the above circumstances is very relevant and makes out a case of false implication of the accused. Counsel pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that after release on bail, the accused had tried to bring pressure on the police. The diary entry produced in this court pertains to an earlier period. Counsel submitted that the accused is on bail for a considerable period. There is nothing on record to show that he has tried to tamper with the evidence or he has obstructed the course of administration of justice. It would be, therefore, improper to cancel his bail.
6. Cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only in the circumstances and for the reasons wh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
