2002 Supreme(Guj) 285

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.J.Shethna
VALLABHBHAI NARANBHAI PARMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 52 of 2002
Decided On : 04/06/2002

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Sec. 401 — Revision petition to quash and set aside order of regular bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 3 dated 3.1.2002 — Scope of — Learned Judge of the lower Court after considering the material on record and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of Bhagirath Singh Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, 1984 (1) GLR 332 released respondents on bail but has not cared to see the later pronouncements of Supreme Court — Judgment relied upon by lower Court is of the year 1984 thereafter much water has flown and in one of the latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court correlated to High Courts, it has been emphasized that while granting bail Courts must take into consideration seriousness of the offences, gravity of the offences — The learned Judge of the lower Court has totally overlooked the fact that it was a case under Sec. 306 of IPC where in the deceased `S within two years of her married life committed suicide and that too when she was carrying pregnancy of 8 months on account of alleged torture by her husband — Court also found that the learned Judge has totally overlooked the provisions of Sec. 113-B of [Indian] Evidence Act which granting bail — It is true that there is delay of two days in filing the complaint but in the facts of the case delay is no so material — Under the circumstances when the learned Judge has failed to exercise his discretion in judicious manner, then there is no alternative for this Court but to interfere and order cancellation of bail order.

       Court is conscious of the fact that High Court should ordinarily not interfere with the bail which is discretionary order but when the learned Judge, who has completely ignored important provisions of Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and in a most cursory manner granted bail then there is no other option for this Court but to interfere with the same in its revisional jurisdiction. While granting bail the learned Judge has completely overlooked the fact that this type of offences under Secs. 304-B and 306 because of dowry death are at great increase in the State and causing alarm to the public at large. These are the offences not against individuals but these are offences against society at large. It is unfortunate that some of our subordinate Judges without considering these aspects easily granting bail in such type of cases. It is shocking that in his entire order the learned Judge has not at all referred to the fact that deceased Shantaben committed suicide was carrying 8 months of pregnancy.

       [Para 7]

       It is true that there was delay of two days in filing complaint but it can never be said that the complainant, who was none less but advocate took time to prepare himself and drafted the complaint in such a manner that the accused may not be able to come out from the clutches of the law. The learned Judge should have borne in mind that complainant though may be an advocate but after all he was the brother of deceased Shantaben, who committed suicide with pregnancy of 8 months and one should not forget that duty as a brother is first then as an advocate. This type of orders of bail shake the confidence of the public at large.

       [Para 8]

       It seems that the learned Judge, who is fairly senior District and Sessions Judge is relying upon an old judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinhs case, which was delivered way back in 1984. Thereafter, much water has been flown and there are number of recent Honble Supreme Court judgments and one of the latest judgments of Honble Supreme Court circulated to the High Courts wherein the Honble Supreme Court has emphasized that while granting bail the Courts must take into consideration seriousness of the offences, gravity of the offences. But, as stated earlier, the learned Judge has not at all bothered to apply his mind to this and simply relying upon the old judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinhs case has no application to the facts of this case granted bail.

       [Para 9]

       Under the circumstances, when the learned Judge, who failed to exercise his discretion in judicious manner then there is no alternative to this Court but to interfere with such orders.

       [Para 10]