Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC. – Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. – Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974- 1975 of 2019 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.8882-8883 of 2019)
Decided On : 07-01-2020
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Cancellation of – Factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by this Court to be gravity of crime, character of evidence, position and status of accused with reference to victim and witnesses, likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and repeating offence, possibility of his tampering with evidence and witnesses and obstructing course of justice etc. – Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by Court – Court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against accused – For the purpose of bail, Court must not undertake meticulous examination of evidence collected by Police and comment on the same – Rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with liberty of individual and it must not be lightly resorted to. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Cancellation of – Murder charge – Cancellation of bail can be done in cases where order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice – If court granting bail ignores relevant material 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 bail – Sessions Court did not discuss material on record in detail, but there is indication from orders by which bail was granted that entire material was perused before grant of bail – Order of Sessions Court by which bail was granted to Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as Sessions Court was conscious of fact that investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of Appellant tampering with evidence – Complaint alleging that Appellants were influencing witnesses is vague and is without any details regarding involvement of Appellants in threatening witnesses – High Court was not right in cancelling bail of Appellants – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 8, 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
High Court allowed applications filed for cancellation of bail on the ground that Principal Sessions Judge did not consider material available on record before granting bail to the Appellants. High Court further held that the criminal antecedents of Appellants were not taken into account by trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Sessions Court did not discuss the material on record in detail, but there is an indication from orders by which bail was granted that the entire material was perused before grant of bail. It is not the case of either complainant-Respondent No.2 or State that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting bail to Appellants.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Respondent No.2 in the above Appeals lodged a complaint which was registered under Sections 148, 120 B, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Karimnagar Rural Police Station vide FIR No.155 dated 19.04.2019. It was alleged in the complaint that the husband of Respondent No.2, Bojja Thirupathi was the Chairman of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Chamanapalli village, Karimnagar District. Members of the Society alone were permitted to carry out fishing activities in the tanks in Rajasamudram and Appanapalli villages. The membership of the Appellants in the Fishermen Co-operative Society was cancelled due to which they were not permitted to carry out fishing activities. Three years before the complaint the husband of Respondent No.2 was attacked by the Appellants at the village Panchayat office and a criminal case was registered against the Appellants, which was pending. On 19.04.2019, the husband of Respondent No.2 went to Chamanapalli village to inspect the tank. At about 5.00 pm, the Appellants attacked the husband of Respondent No.2 with stones and he succumbed to the injuries.
2. The Appellants moved applications for bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar who summoned the case diary, statements of the witnesses and other connected records. The Principal Sessions Judge released the Appellants on bail by imposing conditions that the Appellants shall appear before the Karimnagar Rural Police Station on every alternative day between 10.00 am to 05.00 pm and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar. Another condition was imposed that the Appellants shall not influence or tamper with the evidence.
3. Respondent No.2 filed a petition for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. before the High Court for the State of Telangana. On 10.07.2019, a charge sheet was filed against the Appellants. According to the charge sheet, all the accused gathered and planned to kill Bojja Thirupathi on 19.04.2019. They formed into two groups. The first group, consisting of A5, A7 to A11 and A15, attacked the deceased and remaining persons were standing guard near the tank. Even according to the charge sheet, there is no overt act alleged against any of the accused, except A6 who is alleged to have strangulated the deceased with a towel.
4. We are informed at the bar that the case has been committed for trial. The High Court allowed the applications filed for cancellation of bail on the ground that the Principal Sessions Judge did not consider the material available on record before granting bail to the Appellants. The High Court further held that the criminal antecedents of the Appellants were not taken into account by the trial Court. That apart, the High Court accepted the submissions on behalf of Respondent No.2 that the Appellants indulged in threatening the witnesses after being released on bail.
5. The Appellants contended that no specific overt act was attributed to any of the accused, except for omnibus allegations made against them. It is argued that the complaint that was made by Respondent No.2 is on the basis of vague allegations regarding tampering with the evidence. The Appellants urged that the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside as there were no compelling reasons for interfering with the order of the Sessions Court by which they were released on bail.
6. The factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice etc. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a
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
