Bail should not be granted in a mechanical manner, especially in cases where the involvement of the accused is prima facie doubtful, to avoid sending the wrong message to society and discouraging offenders.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 439(2) r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr P C’). Vide Crl.MC No.2392/2015, petitioner/ State seeks direction thereby quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 whereby learned Trial Court granted bail to respondent Rupak Rana accused in case FIR No. 246/2014 registered at PS Alipur under sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 Arms Act pending trial against him. The complainant Rajpal Rana/petitioner in Crl.MC No.3322/2015 has also confined to the same relief sought by the State in Crl.MC 2392/2015, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Learned APP for the petitioner/State submitted that counsel for the respondent/accused argued before the trial court that role assigned to the respondent/accused is only after firing incident and accordingly he has been impleaded merely with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Learned APP argued that the respondent/accused had also sustained bullet injuries in his hand which clearly shows his presence at the spot at the time of the incident in question. To strenghtan his arguments, he referred to the opinion dated 20.03.2014 given by Dr. Bhim Singh with regard to bullet injury sustained by the respondent/accused to the effect that said injury could be possible due to low velocity project-tile (bullet), which lost velocity after piercing the body of the deceased Rajbeer Rana.

3. Learned APP further submitted that vide supplementary statement dated 06.06.2014 complainant Rajpal Rana alleged that the respondent himself exhorted the words “Iska Kaam Tamam Kar De”.

4. Learned APP referred to the Rukka sent by the police after recording the statement of the complainant wherein it is clearly stated that he was inside the house when he heard noise and accordingly came outside and saw that Prem father of the respondent/accused was engaged in abusing with his brother Rajbeer Rana. His brother asked Prem not to hurl abusive on which the said Prem called his sons Pushpak @ Bunty and Rupak @ Nicky (respondent) and asked them to bring revolver. The complainant tried to stop the accused Prem from doing so, meanwhile co-accused Pushpak s/o Prem came close to his brother Rajbeer and shot at him 3-4 times. The learned trial court considered the statement of the respondent that he was not present at the time of the incident.

5. Learned APP submitted that respondent Rupak Rana is accused in a case under section 302 IPC for which the punishment is life imprisonment or death. Thus, granting bail is barred under section 437 of Cr.PC.

6. To strengthen his arguments, learned APP relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another (2004) 7 SCC 528 in which the Apex Court observed as under:-

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are,

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

………………………………………………

……………………………………………….

15. Learned counsel f