Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari, J.
Ms. Y – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7893 of 2021)
Decided On : 19-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rishi Matoliya, Advocate, For the Appellant / Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Advocate, Ms. Preeti Thanvi, Advocate, Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned bail orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and the factors to be considered while granting bail.

Headnote:
Bail - Grant of Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-prosecutrix registered an FIR against the respondent no. 2 - accused, her uncle, for forcibly raping her on two occasions and committing other sexual offenses over a period of three to four years. The High Court granted bail to the accused, who had nearly twenty criminal cases pending against him, including charges of murder, attempt to murder, and kidnapping.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the High Court had granted bail to the accused without proper reasoning and without considering the gravity of the offenses and the accused's criminal history.
Issues: The issues involved the appropriateness of the bail granted to the accused, the failure of the High Court to consider relevant factors, and the lack of reasoning in the bail order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for reasoned bail orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and highlighted the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the charge, the accused's criminal history, and the likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Final Decision: The impugned order granting bail to the accused was set aside, and the accused was directed to surrender within one week from the receipt of the order.

JUDGMENT

N.V. Ramana, CJI. - 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 chargesheet 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:

"24 ...E