Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Dataram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.227 of 2018
Decided on : 06-02-2018
(2017) 10 SCC 658; 2017 (13) SCALE 609; (1980) 2 SCC 565; AIR 1924 Cal 476; AIR 1931 All 356 – Referred
Facts of the case:
9. On 13th January, 2016 the complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) No.16 of 2016 at Police Station Sahjanawa, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that the appellant had cheated him of an amount exceeding Rs.37 lakhs and had therefore committed an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged that the appellant had issued a cheque for Rs. 18 lakhs in favour of the complainant but had stopped payment of that cheque.
Thereafter the complainant filed Complaint Case on or about 21st January, 2016. Cognizance was taken and summons issued to the appellant by the concerned Magistrate in the complaint case.
Much later, on or about 15th August, 2016, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the appellant. During the investigations the appellant was not arrested.
Fearing arrest after the charge sheet was filed against him, the appellant moved the High Court for quashing the FIR. The High Court declined to quash the FIR, but granted two months time to the appellant to appear before the trial judge. On 11th April, 2017 the appellant approached the High Court once again, this time for a further period of two weeks to enable him to appear before the trial judge. Time as prayed for, appears to have been granted and eventually on 24th April, 2017 the appellant appeared before the trial judge and was taken into judicial custody. The appellant has been in judicial custody ever since.
A bail application moved by the appellant was rejected by the trial judge on 27th April, 2017 and another application for bail was rejected by the High Court on 21st September, 2017.
Finding of the Court:
Courts below ought to grant bail to appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed. Bail granted.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Bail is generally the rule, and incarceration is an exception, emphasizing a humane and compassionate approach in granting bail (!) .
The exercise of judicial discretion in granting or denying bail must consider multiple factors, including whether the accused was arrested during investigations, their participation in the investigation process, and whether there is any genuine fear of victimization or absconding (!) .
The status and conduct of the accused, such as whether they are first-time offenders or have prior criminal records, as well as their economic condition, are relevant considerations in bail decisions. These factors should inform a humane and balanced approach (!) .
The importance of maintaining the dignity of the accused and considering social issues like prison overcrowding are emphasized, advocating for a humane attitude in judicial proceedings related to bail (!) .
While bail should not be granted in every case, the discretion to do so must be exercised judiciously, considering the specific circumstances of each case, including the absence of any risk of absconding or hampering the trial (!) .
In the context of the case discussed, the appellant was not arrested during the investigation, was granted multiple opportunities to appear before the trial court, and there was no evidence of him being a flight risk or a danger to the trial process. These facts warranted the grant of bail (!) .
The courts below failed to exercise their discretion properly, as they did not sufficiently consider the absence of any apprehension of absconding or obstructing the trial, and the appellant’s lack of prior criminal conduct. Therefore, bail should have been granted (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and bail was granted to the appellant under reasonable conditions, reflecting the court’s view that the circumstances did not justify continued detention and that a humane approach was appropriate (!) .
In summary, the decision underscores that bail should be granted unless there are clear reasons to believe the accused may abscond or obstruct justice. The courts must exercise their discretion judiciously, considering all relevant factors, including the accused’s conduct, investigation status, and social context.
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 All 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the r
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
