2016 Supreme(SC) 926

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI & ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
STATE OF BIHAR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PD. YADAV @ RAJBALLABH YADAV – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2016
Decided On : 24-11-2016

MAIN POINTS
Subsequent bail application should be heard by the same Judge who heard the previous bail application and rejected it. No objection by the State to change of Judge before the High Court is no ground for not entertaining application for cancellation of bail granted by High Court.
When High Court exercises its discretion and grants bail, Supreme Court does not interfere, normally unless the bail is granted on extraneous considerations and/or relevant factors are ignored or bypassed.
Discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision.
Granting bail by ignoring material evidence on record and without giving reasons would be perverse and contrary to principles of law
If granting bail to accused may hamper fair trial, bail can be cancelled. Liberty of accused and interest of society of fair trial need to be balanced.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Judicial propriety – Section 438 and 439(2), Code of Criminal; Procedure, 1973 – State in appeal against grant of bail to respondent by High Court pleading that subsequent bail petition should be heard by the same Judge who earlier heard and dismissed it – Instantly the earlier bail petition was heard and dismissed by a single Judge and the subsequent bail petition was heard by the Chief Justice himself granting the bail – As the Principal Additional Advocate General had expressed his no objection to the Chief Justice hearing the subsequent bail petition, this ground does not survive – However, this by itself is not enough for dismissing the appeal more so when there is no suppression of fact a claimed by respondent. (Para 8)

       (1964) 3 SCR 480 – Referred

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439(2) – When High Court exercises its discretion and grants bail, Supreme Court does not interfere, normally – Interference will however be warranted if bail is granted on extraneous considerations and/or relevant factors are ignored or bypassed. (Para 12)

       (1978) 2 SCC 411; (1984) 1 SCC 284; (1986) 4 SCC 767 – Relied upon

       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 and 439(2) – Grant and cancellation of bail – Reasons for granting bail must be recorded – Discussing evidence is totally different from giving reasons for a decision – Granting bail by ignoring material evidence on record and without giving reasons would be perverse and contrary to principles of law – Such order granting bail liable to be cancelled. (Para 13)

       (2001) 6 SCC 338 – Relied upon

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Respondent surrendering only after initiation of process u/s 83 – Direct and specific allegations of raping minor girl – Threatening and intimidating prosecutrix and her family members – Has a criminal antecedent – Even then High Court granting bail making casual and cryptic remarks – High Court not dealing with chances of the accused person fleeing from justice or reasonable apprehension of him tampering with evidence/trial if released on bail – High Court ignoring rejection of bail application of co- accused – High Court also not considering provisions of Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Not a fit case for granting bail. (Para 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

       (2012) 12 SCC 180 – Relied upon

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – For ensuring fair trial – Possible only if witnesses are able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully – If granting bail to accused may hamper fair trial, bail can be cancelled – Liberty of accused and interest of society of fair trial need to be balanced. (Para 22, 23, 24)

       (2005) 3 SCC 143; 1958 SCR 1226; (2009) 14 SCC 286; (2014) 16 SCC 508; Criminal Appeal No. 2526 of 2014 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent herein is facing trial in Mahila Police Station Case No. 15 of 2016, wherein he is charged for committing offences under Sections 376, 420/34, 366-A, 370, 370-A, 212, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.

       The respondent surrendered before the trial court on 10.03.2016 and was taken into custody. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet in the case was filed on 20.04.2016 and the charges were framed on 06.08.2016.

       Pending trial, the respondent filed bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was heard and dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 30.05.2016.

       On 19.08.2016, the respondent preferred another bail petition before the High Court. This time the High Court has directed release of the respondent on bail.

       Finding of the Court:

       Cancellation of bail of the respondent is necessary for ensuring fair trial.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.