Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 36

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Jaibunisha – Appellant
Versus
Meharban & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(CRL.) No. 6329 of 2020)
Jaibunisha - Appellant
Versus
Jumma & Ors. – Respondents
With Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(CRL.) No. 1337 of 2021)
Decided On : 18-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Adv.(AAG) Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. A. Dev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sthalekar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court deciding bail application cannot grant bail to accused without having regard to material aspects of case.
(2) Bail – Propensity of accused tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses is an important factor to be borne in mind.
(3) It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when case is at initial stage and allegations of offences by accused may not have been crystallised as such, an order de hors any reasoning whatsoever cannot result in grant of bail.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Court deciding bail application cannot grant bail to accused without having regard to material aspects of case such as allegations made against accused; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; frivolity in case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused – It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when case is at initial stage and allegations of offences by accused may not have been crystallised as such, an order de hors any reasoning whatsoever cannot result in grant of bail – If bail is granted in a casual manner, prosecution or informant has a right to assail order before a higher forum. (Para 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – When bail has been granted to accused, State may, if new circumstances have arisen following grant of such bail, approach High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. – However, if no new circumstances have cropped up since grant of bail, State may prefer an appeal against order granting bail, on the ground that same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against accused. (Para 22)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Murder and other charges – Offences alleged against accused are of grave and heinous nature inasmuch as there was death of appellant’s son and serious injuries caused to her husband and another son – Accused-respondents resisted arrest for a period of approximately three and a half months as they were absconding – Accused failed to surrender before Trial Court in gross violation of directions of Additional District and Sessions Judge, High Court and even this Court – This is a glaring instance of gross violation of courts’ orders and rule of law – Chances of accused absconding are grave having regard to their previous conduct, if they are on bail – This would delay commencement and conclusion of trial and consequently have an adverse impact on cause of justice – Propensity of accused-respondents tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses is an important factor to be borne in mind in such cases – As a result, accused being beneficiaries of same cannot be ruled out – Impugned order of High Court granting bail to accused set aside. (Paras 23, 24 and 25)
(D) Maxim – Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is soul of law, and when reason of any particular law ceases, so does law itself”. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred by informant appellant assailing the orders dated 7th October, 2020 and 17th November, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 29759 of 2020 and 39886 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to six persons accused in Sardhana P.S. Crime Case No.955 of 2018.
Findings of Court:
Accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA J.

These appeals have been preferred by the informant - appellant assailing the orders dated 7th October, 2020 and 17th November, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 29759 of 2020 and 39886 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to six persons accused in Sardhana P.S. Crime Case No.955 of 2018.

2. It is the case of the appellant that she is the mother of the deceased Yameen. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the attack on her sons, namely Yameen and Mobin and her husband, Jamshed. The appellant herein is the person who lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 955/2018 for offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’). In all eleven accused were named in the FIR, being respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.76/2022, namely Meherban; respondent no. 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No.77/2022, namely Jumma, Hakmeen, Yaseen, Arshad and Firoz, and five more persons namely, Bhoora, Shahid, Sullad, Yamin and Dev.

3. That FIR No. 955/2018 dated 27th August, 2018 is stated to have been filed by the appellant herein at around 21:05 hrs in the night stating that at around 18:00 hrs of the same day the accused, armed with swords and knives entered appellant’s house with a common intention to attack and kill Yameen and Mobin, sons of the appellant and Jamshed, appellant’s husband. That on entering the house, they started hurling abuses and attacked the sons and husband of the appellant, attempting to kill them. The neighbours of the appellant came to their rescue. However, as a result of such assault, Yameen died and Mobin and Jamshed sustained serious injuries. The informant-appellant has further stated that there was a preexisting dispute between the deceased and Bhoora, one among the accused, which was settled by the residents of their locality. However, the accused, in continuation of the said dispute attacked the sons and the husband of the appellant and killed one of her sons, namely, Yameen.

4. Appellant’s son, Mobin was medically examined on the date of the incident and the medical report records that that incised wounds were found on his hand, which could be caused by a sharp edged object. The injury report of Jamshed described three injuries, i.e. an incised wound on the scalp, abrasion and contusion on the back and arm.

5. After conducting an investigation, the Police filed a chargesheet only against three accused, namely, Sullad, Bhoora alias Shadab and Yamin. They were subsequently arrested by the Police. The accused-respondents in the instant appeals are the eight other accused named in the FIR but were not charge-sheeted.

6. The appellant filed an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” for the sake of brevity) for summoning the accused-respondents herein who were not charge sheeted by the Police. The accused-respondents were summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 21st September, 2019.

7. On the date of commencement of trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, the accused Sullad, Bhoora alias Shadab and Yamin were presented before the Court by the Police. However, the accused-respondents summoned under section 319 of the CrPC, failed to appear before the trial court. Therefore, the Additional District and Sessions Judge by order dated 15th October, 2019 issued Non-Bailable Warrants against the respondents herein.

8. On the next date fixed for trial, the accused-respondents against whom Non-Bailable Warrants were issued, again failed to appear before the court and it was reported by the Police that the said accused were absconding and were not found even at their residences. The Additional District and Sessions Judge by order dated 4th November, 2019 issued a proclamation under section 82 of the CrPC against the accused-respondents.

9. In the mean