Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Y - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7893 of 2021)
Decided On : 19-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv.
For the R.No.1 : Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the R.No.2 : Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail requires consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon specific facts and circumstances of case before Court – There is no strait-jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to relevant factors could be.
(2) Reasoning is life blood of judicial system – Every order must be reasoned is one of fundamental tenets of our system.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Rape, dacoity and murder charges – Once bail has been granted, Appellate Court is usually slow to interfere with the same as it pertains to the liberty of an individual – Grant of bail requires consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon specific facts and circumstances of case before Court – There is no strait-jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to relevant factors could be – However, certain important factors that are always considered, relate to prima facie involvement of accused, nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, and character, position and standing of accused – At the stage of granting bail Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of evidence in the case – Such an exercise may be undertaken at stage of trial – Apex Court has consistently upheld necessity of reasoned bail orders, with a special emphasis on matters involving serious offences – In present case, accused has been accused of committing grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years – Accused is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases registered against him – Period of imprisonment, being only three months, is not of such a magnitude as to push Court towards granting bail in an offence of this nature – Impugned order passed by High Court is cryptic and does not suggest any application of mind – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and bail cancelled. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 21, 22 and 24)
(B) Administration of Justice – Reasoned order – Reasoning is life blood of judicial system – Every order must be reasoned is one of fundamental tenets of our system – An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14458 of 2021 by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jaipur, whereby the High Court granted regular bail to respondent no. 2 accused.
Findings of Court:
What is being considered in this case relates to whether the High Court has exercised the discretionary power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in granting bail appropriately. Such an assessment is different from deciding whether circumstances subsequent to the grant of bail have made it necessary to cancel the same. The first situation requires Court to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other hand, application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, CJI.

1. Leave granted

2. The present appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14458 of 2021 by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jaipur, whereby the High Court granted regular bail to respondent no. 2 - accused.

3. The counsel for the appellant-prosecutrix submits that the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent no. 2 - accused in a mechanical manner without any reasoning. Learned counsel submits that the High Court did not consider the facts of the case before it, more particularly, the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent no. 2 - accused. Additionally, the High Court did not consider that the respondent no. 2 - accused is a hardened criminal with nearly twenty criminal cases pending against him. Under such circumstances, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and set aside the bail granted to respondent no. 2 - accused.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 - State supported the submissions of the appellant and submitted that the impugned order is a cryptic one which is liable to be set aside. He submitted that there is a strong prima facie case against the respondent no. 2 - accused who committed the heinous offence of rape and sexual assault upon his minor niece for nearly three to four years. Further, respondent no. 2 - accused is an infamous criminal who has twenty criminal cases registered against him, in some of which he has already been convicted. The list of cases registered against him include cases relating to murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, dacoity, etc. Therefore, the order of the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 - accused should be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the High Court passed the impugned order granting bail after hearing the respondent no. 2 - accused and the State. No new materials have been placed on record before this Court, requiring this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Further, it is a settled position of law that an appellate Court must be slow to interfere in an order granting bail to the accused.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before adverting to the submissions made by the parties relating to the grant of bail, it is necessary to provide a brief conspectus of the allegations made against respondent no. 2 - accused. As per the charge-sheet dated 29.06.2021 filed in the present case, it is stated that the appellant-prosecutrix registered an FIR on 30.05.2021 wherein it was stated that on the 16-17.05.2021 the respondent no. 2 - accused, her uncle, had come to her house. At around mid-night to 1 am the respondent no. 2 - accused had called her to his room and forcibly raped her on two occasions. Although, initially, she did not narrate this to anyone because she was scared, some of her relatives noticed her strange behaviour. When they asked her why she was sad, she narrated the entire incident to her family. Even before this incident, the respondent no. 2 - accused had misbehaved with her. In 2014, he touched her inappropriately. In 2015, he had attempted to rape her. He used to try to chat with her and used obscene language, and attempted to establish physical relationship with her on various occasions. She had never disclosed these incidents to anyone as he threatened her. It is in the background of these allegations that the appropriateness of the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 - accused must be considered.

8. This Court has, in a catena of judgments, outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section 439, CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 this Court has held as to the various parameters which must be considered while granting bail. This Court held as follows