Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1343

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vineet Saran, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Sabir – Appellant
Versus
Bhoora @ Nadeem & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6941 of 2021) with Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6942 of 2021) and Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6943 of 2021)
Decided On : 15-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Durga Dass Vashist, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Siram, Advocate, Ms. Vidhi Thakkar, Advocate, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate, Mr. Palav Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. K.P. Jayaram, Advocate,Ms. Vanshika Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Yash Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Zaid Ansari, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, Sr. Advocate, (AAG), Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that substantive reasons must be provided for granting bail in a murder case under Section 302 IPC, and the lack of such reasons can lead to the setting aside of the bail orders.

Headnote:
Bail Granting - Murder Case - Section 302 IPC - [Section 302 IPC] - The High Court granted bail to the respondents in a murder case under Section 302 IPC without providing substantive reasons for the decision. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders due to the lack of substantial reasons and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from the same FIR for the murder of the complainant's brother under Section 302 of the IPC. The respondents were arrested nearly six months after the incident, and the Trial Court rejected their bail application. The High Court granted bail to the respondents in the appeals, which were challenged in these appeals.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had granted bail without providing substantive reasons, and therefore set aside the impugned orders. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and made it clear that if the trial is not concluded within eight months, the respondents would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail by the High Court without providing substantive reasons in a murder case under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of substantive reasons provided by the High Court for granting bail in a murder case, which led to the setting aside of the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, and the respondents were given the liberty to file a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded within eight months.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the same FIR dated 18.08.2020 lodged under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the brother of the complainant. The complainant has filed these appeals. The respondents were arrested after nearly six months of the incident. The Trial Court rejected their bail application. However, the High Court has granted the bail to the respondents in the appeals by the impugned orders, which are under challenge in these appeals.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the accused/respondents. We have also heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, learned AAG for the State, who has supported the case of the appellant and perused the material placed on record.

4. On perusal of the impugned orders, what is noteworthy is that in the impugned orders passed by the High Court no reason has been given for grant of bail. In the case of murder (under Section 302 IPC), it is expected that at least some reason would be given while reversing the order of the Trial Court, which had rejected the bail application by a reasoned order. What we notice is that in the impugned orders the High Court, while granting bail, has only stated that "Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial". In the present case, the nature of the offence is very grave i.e. murder under Section 302 IPC and if such reasons are to be accepted for granting bail, then probably in all cases bail would be granted.

5. Since we find that no reasons have been given in substance and there is only narration of facts in the orders impugned, we are of the opinion that the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the appeals are allowed and impugned orders dated 02.08.2021, 20.07.2021 & 25.01.2021 are set aside. We, however, direct that the Trial Court may expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude it within eight months from the receipt of a copy of this order. The appellants shall not seek any adjournment before the Trial Court. We further observe that in case the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid time, the respondents shall be at liberty to file fresh application for bail before the Trial Court.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document