Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER – Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8781 of 2016)
Decided On : 28-03-2017
(2011) 1 SCC 694 – Distinguished
(2012) 1 SCC 40 – Referred
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Trial judge not considering rejection of bail twice – Supreme Court not entertaining the SLP – Trial court should not have allowed endeavour to obtain bail on same factual score – Absolute impropriety. (Para 20)
(2004) 7 SCC 525; (2013) 7 SCC 452; (2014) 16 SCC 508; (2008) 5 SCC 66 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Accused committing honour killing – Bail application in such a case could not be entertained – Approach of trial judge perverse and not acceptable. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, 114 read with Section 149 IPC.
They applied unsuccessfully for bail twice.
On third occasion the trial court granted bail which was not challenged by the State.
The informant, father of the deceased, filed application before High Court for cancellation of bail.
High Court cancelled the bail.
Finding of the Court:
Approach of trial court was perverse. High Court rightly set aside the order of trial court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with their corresponding references:
1. Legal Principle: Filing of Charge Sheet is not a Ground for Bail * The filing of a charge sheet does not constitute a "change of circumstance" justifying a new bail application, as it does not lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. * The trial court is obligated to apply its mind and consider all relevant factors rather than relying solely on the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. (!) (!) (!)
2. Judicial Propriety and History of Applications * When the Supreme Court does not entertain a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the cancellation of bail, the trial court should not allow an endeavor to obtain bail on the same factual score. * Allowing a successive bail application after the Supreme Court has declined relief amounts to "absolute impropriety" and a perverse approach by the trial judge who ignores the pendency of the SLP. (!) (!) (!)
3. Bail in "Honour Killing" Cases * Bail applications cannot be entertained in cases involving "honour killings." * In such cases, where the motive stems from community honor and vengeance against inter-caste relationships, the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offense preclude the grant of liberty. (!)
4. Factual Background of the Case * The appellants were charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, and 114 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC for the murder of a young man. (!) * The deceased had eloped with the daughter of the accused (Appellant No. 1) from a different community ("Uppar" vs. "Lingayat"), leading to a brutal assault and death. (!) * The appellants had previously moved two bail applications which were rejected by the trial court and the High Court; a subsequent SLP to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. (!) (!)
5. Outcome * The High Court correctly cancelled the bail granted by the trial court due to the perversity of the trial judge's approach. * The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ordered the appellants to surrender to custody, and directed the trial judge to take them into custody. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, who have been arraigned as accused in sessions case being S.C. No.90 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.118 of 2015, registered at Raichur Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after being taken into custody, in the course of investigation being aspirant for obtaining liberty, preferred an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), that is, Criminal Misc. No. 457 of 2015 in the court of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, which stood dismissed.
3. Being grieved by the aforesaid order of rejection for grant of bail, the accused-appellants moved the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Petition No. 200629 of 2015. The High Court adverted to the deadly weapons that were carried by the accused persons, the nature of injuries sustained on the vital parts by the deceased and the allegation of specific overt acts, and rejected the application.
4. Thereafter, a second application for grant of bail was moved by the appellants before the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, that is, Criminal Misc. No. 791 of 2015. It was contended before the learned trial Judge that as, in the meantime, the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed, there had been a change of circumstance and hence, they were entitled to be admitted to bail. That apart, certain grounds pertaining to ailment of some of the accused persons were highlighted. The learned trial Judge, as is evident, referred to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials that had come on record during the investigation and the postmortem report and considering all other relevant aspects, declined to enlarge the appellants on bail. It is worthy to note here that though a ground of parity was urged on the base that the accused Nos. 4 to 7 had been released on anticipatory bail, the same did not impress the court and accordingly the inevitable result, the dismissal, followed.
5. The aforesaid order of dismissal constrained the appellants to move the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 200944 of 2015. The High Court vide its order dated 23rd September, 2015, after referring to the nature of alleged assault by the accused persons, the type of injury sustained by the deceased and considering the pertinent facts did not accede to the prayer for grant of bail.
6. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9858 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 27th November, 2015.
7. The aforesaid narration of facts would give one the impression that the attempt of the appellants to be enlarged on bail was over unless some extraordinary circumstance could usher in which could be considered as change of circumstance, but as the chronology of events would show the indefatigable spirit of the appellants forced them to remain embedded in their stance for putting any stand as a change of circumstance for the purpose of grant of bail. We do not intend to mean even for a moment that the accused cannot move successive application for grant of bail. That is his right in law. Our emphasis is on the delineation by the Court. The said right invigorated with adroit efforts, resulted in filing of an application in S.C. No. 90 of 2015. As is evident from the record, the earlier bail applications were rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, but the third application was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur. As the order would reveal, the learned trial Judge has thought it apposite to deal with the application as if he was dealing with the first application and copiously referred to the materials brought on record, referred to pronouncements in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (20
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
