Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1855
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B. SHAH, R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3285 of 2001
Decided on : 17-09-2001
For the Petitioners:Mr. RK Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Mr. Avinash Kumar, Mr. Kripya Shankar, Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Advocates.
For the Complainant :Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.C. Verma, Advocates.
The social status of the accused should not be considered in deciding the grant or refusal of bail in criminal matters; the primary consideration should be the seriousness of the offence based on the material collected by the investigating agency.
Headnote:
Bail - Consideration of Social Status - The court held that the social status of the accused, in this case a Member of Parliament, should not be considered for deciding the grant or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the offence based on the material collected by the investigating agency is the primary consideration for bail decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, sought bail in a case involving the alleged murder of five persons and charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner did not call for any interference, as the seriousness of the offence based on the material collected by the investigating agency was the primary consideration for bail decisions, and the social status of the accused should not be a factor.
Issues: The issue revolved around the consideration of social status, specifically the petitioner's status as a Member of Parliament, in the grant or refusal of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in criminal matters, the social status of the accused should not be a factor in deciding bail, and the primary consideration should be the seriousness of the offence based on the material collected by the investigating agency.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed by the court, upholding the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner.
ORDER :
1. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The impugned order passed by the High Court does not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioner is an M.P., the High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference.
4. For grant or refusal of bail, seriousness of the offence on the basis of the material collected by the investigating Agency is required to be taken into consideration. In the present case, murder of five persons is alleged to have been committed and petitioners along with other persons is chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 395/396 Indian Penal Code. It is true that in criminal matters social status of the accused is not required to be considered for deciding the matter. In our view, the High Court has not held that as petitioner is a Member of Parliament, the bail is refused or has not drawn any adverse inference. Further, the High Court has passed appropriate orders.
5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court refusing to grant bail does not call for any interference. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
