1. Appeal against High Court order granting regular bail for offences including murder under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.2495 of 2023 @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3552 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that bail in serious offences, specifically murder (Section 302 IPC), cannot be granted based on a settlement with the complainant. Criminal antecedents and the propensity to commit further crimes while on bail are critical factors that outweigh such settlements in determining bail eligibility.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Bail application granted by High Court challenged - Court stresses that serious charges under Section 302 justify detention - Accused's criminal antecedents noted as significant, including FIRs for serious offences - Bail grant quashed, respondent directed to surrender. (Paras 2, 12, 14)
(B) Appeal - Scope of interference in bail decisions - Courts must consider the nature of allegations, antecedents, and potential for evidence tampering. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bail grant in a murder case, where the appellant contends the respondent's criminal history and the severity of charges warrant detention.
Findings of Court:
Bail granted on improper grounds given the serious nature of the charges and the respondent's criminal history, leading to the decision to quash the bail.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court appropriately considered the seriousness of the charges and the respondent's antecedents in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that serious charges under the IPC's Section 302, along with the respondent's past criminal activities, necessitated denial of bail; thus, the High Court's decision was flawed.
Result: Appeal allowed, bail order quashed.
(B) Appeal - Scope of interference in bail decisions - Courts must consider the nature of allegations, antecedents, and potential for evidence tampering. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bail grant in a murder case, where the appellant contends the respondent's criminal history and the severity of charges warrant detention.
Findings of Court:
Bail granted on improper grounds given the serious nature of the charges and the respondent's criminal history, leading to the decision to quash the bail.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court appropriately considered the seriousness of the charges and the respondent's antecedents in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that serious charges under the IPC's Section 302, along with the respondent's past criminal activities, necessitated denial of bail; thus, the High Court's decision was flawed.
Result: Appeal allowed, bail order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Kuldipsinh Jadeja, Adv. Mr. Pyoli, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Kuldipsinh Jadeja, Adv. Mr. Pyoli, Adv. Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleges risk of evidence tampering; respondent contends subsequent criminal charges were duty-related and do not justify bail cancellation. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. High Court erred by considering settlement in a murder case and ignoring criminal antecedents and the accused's propensity for crime. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 )
4. Bail in serious offences like murder should be denied where the accused shows a propensity for crime through criminal antecedents. (Para 12 )
5. High Court bail order quashed; respondent directed to surrender before the trial court. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can a settlement between the accused and the complainant be a ground for granting bail in a murder case?
The court viewed the High Court's consideration of a settlement with the complainant as strange in the context of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. (Para 7 )
7. How do criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail in serious criminal offences?
Criminal antecedents indicate a propensity towards committing crime, which weighs against the grant of bail, especially in serious offences like murder. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 )
8. Does the filing of a charge-sheet automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious offences?
No; despite the charge-sheet being filed, the court may deny bail based on the seriousness of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the risk of evidence tampering. (Para 10 , 12 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by way of special leave has been filed by the complainant who is aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in a Criminal Miscellaneous Application [Crl. Misc. Application No.23194/2021] filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’], granting him regular bail in connection with FIR No.I-CR No.11216008210400/2021 [registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7, Police Station, Gandhinagar], for the offence under Sections 30 2 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [in short ‘the IPC] read with Section 30 of the ARMS ACT and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT .
3. The incident in question took place in the late hours of 17th September, 2021, when as per the complainant, respondent No.2 (accused No.2) along with accused No.1 were seated together at the farm of the victim, namely, Parvinbhai and they had got into a heated argument. In the course of the said argument, on the exhortation of the respondent No.2 (accused No.2), accused No. 1 took out a revolver and fired at the victim. The allegation is that the respondent No.2 hit the deceased victim with a sword. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot in a black coloured Mercedes car. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused returned to the scene of the crime and when confronted by the appellant herein, slapped him and dragged him in their moving car due to which he suffered injuries on the head and the waist. Both the appellant and Pravinbhai were rushed to the hospital where Pravinbhai succumbed to his injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent No.2 had approached the trial Court for seeking regular bail twice. The first application for bail was rejected vide order dated 25th November, 2021 [Cr. M.A. No.1680/2021] . Even on the second occasion [Criminal Misc. Application No. 1763 of 2021 dt. 17.12.2021], the trial Court [Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar] declined to grant any relief to the respondent No.2, keeping in mind the fact that he was facing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC and that the witnesses had identified him during the test identification parade [For short ‘the TIP’] .
5. Dissatisfied by the aforesaid dismissal order, the respondent No.2 approached the High Court and filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge has enumerated the aspects that were considered by the Court for allowing the application moved by the respondent No.2, in para 5 of the impugned order which is extracted as below:-
“5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-
I. The FIR is registered on 18.09.2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 17.09.2021.
II. The applicant is in jail since 23.09.2021.
III. The investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed.
IV. The applicant is also filled on the strength of the settlement now arrived at.
V. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta Dave appearing for the original complainant draws attention of this Court to the affidavit of the original complainant to indicate the settlement.
VI. Considering the manner in which the incident has taken place where the applicant and the deceased alongwith their other friends had got together and there was a scuffle which resulted into the present incident.
VII. Submission of learned advocate for the applicant that it was the deceased who had first drawn the sword and the applicant had tried to snatch away the sword from the deceased.
VIII. Learned advocate for the applicant states that there are no antecedents against the applicant.
IX. Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.”
6. Based on the above consideration, the application filed by the respondent No.2 was allowed by the
