IMPORTANT POINTS
Every accused is same in eyes of law, irrespective of his nationality.
There is distinction between cancellation of bail and legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record.
Passing mandatory orders to subordinate courts to grant bail is not permissible.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Every accused is same in eyes of law – Irrespective of his nationality. (Para 11)
       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Cancellation of bail and legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record – Distinction – Order granting bail set aside. (Para 12, 13)
       (2005) 8 SCC 21; (2011) 6 SCC 189 – Relied upon
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – High Court directing trial court to grant bail – Passing such mandatory orders not permissible – Method applied by respondent gross abuse of process of court. (Para 25)
       Facts of the case:
       This case arises out of an order passed by the High Court granting regular bail to the respondent no.1 under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148 & 149, 326 and 120B of Indian Penal Code of 1860 and Sections 25, 27, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
       Finding of the Court:
       Bail granted by High Court are not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

N. V. RAMANA , J .

Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2018 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 3168 of 2017

1. Leave granted.

2. This case arises out of an order dated 19.01.2017, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, in CRM-M-36539/2016, wherein the High Court has granted regular bail to the respondent no.1 in FIR 205/2015, dated 05.11.2015, filed under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code of 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’ for brevity] and Sections 25, 27, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The facts as alleged in the FIR portray that, on 05.11.2015 at about 5 to 5.15p.m., when complainant’s brother (Harbilas) and one Shingar Chand, were present near the crime scene, Resham Chand Kaler (respondent no. 1—an NRI) accompanied by Kulbir Singh and various other persons, arrived there and started quarrelling with Harbilas and Shingar Chand. In this incident Kulbir Singh is alleged to have fired a shot from his revolver at Shingar Chand. Further, it is alleged that, complainant as well his family members sustained various injuries inflicted by armed cohorts accompanying Resham Chand Kaler (respondent no. 1 herein).

4. After completion of the investigation Sections 326 and 120B of IPC were added in addition to those sections reported under the FIR and a final report was filed by the concerned Police Officer against the accused persons including respondent no. 1. It is brought to our notice that the aforesaid challan was submitted before the Sessions Court on 22.03.2016 and the trial is pending.

5. The respondent no. 1 first approached the trial court in Bail Application 3018/2016, wherein the trial court vide order dated 14.09.2016, rejected the bail application on the ground that, there were serious allegations as to the culpability of respondent no. 1 and the nature of the offences were serious which was committed on broad daylight.

6. Aggrieved, by the rejection of bail by the trial court, respondent no. 1 approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, in CRM-M-36539/2016, wherein the High Court has granted bail on usual terms to respondent no. 1. It would be apt to reduce the reasoning of the High Court-

“Heard.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Ashish Sanghi, DAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice and submits that intimation by Registry informing of fixation of the petition has already been received and record of the case is available with him.
Allegation against the petitioner is that he was main conspirator in the occurrence, in which Shingara Chand was given fire shot injury, who died at the spot while complainant and his nephew Jiwan Kaler were caused injuries with sword.
It is a case of land dispute. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 06.11.2015 and the challan has already been presented. No injury has been attributed to petitioner.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that conclusion of trial will take considerably long time, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Resham Chand Kaler is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:-
a) The petitioner shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) CrPC.
b) In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn. The trial court shall be competent to cancel his bail bond and surety bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.
c) He shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent no.1, the appellant has approached this Court by way of special leave petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) submits that the nature of crime is ve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 58

Cases Referred (2)