Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 577

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Anil Ganjhu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2843 of 2024 (Arising Out Of Slp(Crl) No. 7546 of 2024)
Decided on : 09-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Saiyad Uruj Abbas, Mr. Farrukh Rashid, Adv., Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv., Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Where court considering application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, appellate court may justifiably set aside order granting bail – Where order refusing or granting bail does not furnish reasons that inform the decision, there is presumption of non-application of mind which may require intervention of this Court.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2)[Sections 480(5) and 483(3) of BNSS, 2023] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34[Sections 103(1), 140(1) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023] – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – It is case of prosecution that respondent (accused) is one of members of an extremist organization operating in State of Jharkhand – On fateful day of incident, deceased was forcefully picked up from his house by respondent and other co-accused, and couple of days thereafter, his dead body was recovered – Power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude – Though grant of bail involves exercise of discretionary power of court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – Where court considering application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, appellate court may justifiably set aside order granting bail – Appellate court is required to consider whether order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of evidence on record – High Court failed to assign any reasons for exercise of its discretion in favour of respondent (accused), knowing fully well that he is involved in a serious offence like murder and was absconding for couple of years – Where order refusing or granting bail does not furnish reasons that inform the decision, there is presumption of non-application of mind which may require intervention of this Court – Order passed by High Court, releasing respondent (accused) on bail, set aside and matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 5, 6, 12, 14, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is at instance of State of Jharkhand being aggrieved with order passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 26th April, 2023, releasing respondent herein on bail in connection with FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Bail Application restored to its original file. High Court shall accused as well as State and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of ten days from date of receipt of this order.
Result : Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The sole respondent (accused) though served with the notice issued by this Court has chosen not to remain present before this Court either in-person or through an advocate and oppose this appeal.

3. This appeal is at the instance of the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved with the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 26th April, 2023, releasing the respondent herein on bail in connection with the First Information Report registered with the Police Station, Katkamsandi District, Hazaribagh vide Crime Register No. 29 of 2016 dated 28th February, 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”).

4. The FIR referred to above was lodged by the sister of the deceased.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent (accused) is one of the members of an extremist organization by the name TPC, operating in the State of Jharkhand.

6. On the fateful day of the incident, the deceased was forcefully picked up from his house by the respondent and other co-accused, and couple of days thereafter, his dead body was recovered.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand.

8. It was pointed out that the police was able to arrest all the accused persons involved in the commission of the alleged crime except the respondent herein who went absconding. It was also pointed out that after almost seven years from the date of the registration of the FIR, the police was able to apprehend the respondent herein.

9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant State, the impugned order of bail passed by the High Court could be said to be a non-speaking order, and that too in connection with the offence of a gruesome murder.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside and the bail granted to the respondent (accused) be cancelled.

11. On 16th May, 2024, this Court passed the following order:

2. This petition is at the instance of the State of Jharkhand being dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi releasing the respondent (accused) on bail in connection with PS Case No 29 of 2016 corresponding to GR Case No 611 of 2016 registered for the offence of murder.

3. The order passed by the High Court is so slip shod that we are unable to understand anything, more particularly as to what actually weighed with the High Court in releasing the accused on bail and that too in connection with an offence of murder. The genesis of the occurrence has also not been stated in the impugned order. What are the exact nature of allegations against the accused is also not stated.

4. We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court dealt with the bail application.

5. Issue notice, returnable on 9 July 2024.

6. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”

12. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “CrPC”) to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 CrPC is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

13. This Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Another reported in 2019 INSC 1325, speaking through one of us D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI had the occasion to explain in details and that too very eruditely the principles of grant of bail in serious offences like murder. We quote the relevant observations as under: