Advocates:
T. N. SINGHASHOK KUMAR SINGH

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 381-382 of 2002

PETITIONER:

RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SUDARSHAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2002

BENCH:

Umesh C. Banerjee & Y.K. sabharwal

JUDGMENT:

Banerjee, J.

Leave granted.

While liberty of an individual is precious and there should

always be an all round effort on the part of Law Courts to protect

such liberties of individuals but this protection can be made

available to the deserving ones only since the term protection

cannot by itself be termed to be absolute in any and every

situation but stand qualified depending upon the exigencies of the

situation. It is on this perspective that in the event of there being

committal of a heinous crime it is the society that needs a

protection from these elements since the latter are having the

capability of spreading a reign of terror so as to disrupt the life and

the tranquility of the people in the society. The protection thus to

be allowed upon proper circumspection depending upon the fact

situation of the matter. It is in this context the observations of this

court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & Anr. (1987

(2) SCC 684) seem to be rather apposite. This Court observed in

Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) as below :-

"Had the learned Judge granted time to the

complainant for filing counter-affidavit correct

facts would have been placed before the court and

it could have been pointed out that apart from the

inherent danger of tampering with or intimidating

witnesses and aborting the case, there was also the

danger to the life of the main witnesses or to the

life of the accused being endangered as

experience of life has shown to the members of

the profession and the judiciary, and in that event,

the learned Judge would have been in a better

position to ascertain facts to act judiciously. No

doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously

safeguarded by court, nonetheless when a person

is accused of a serious offence like murder and his

successive bail applications are rejected on merit

there being prima facie material, the prosecution

is entitled to place correct facts before the court.

Liberty is to be secured through process of law,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

which is administered keeping in mind the

interests of the accused, the near and dear of the

victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and

believe that there is no justice in the world as also

the collective interest of the community so that

parties do not lose faith in the institution and

indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was

unduly influenced by the concept of liberty,

disregarding the facts of the case."

Grant of bail though being a discretionary order but,

however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious

manner and not as a matter of course. Order for Bail bereft of any

cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however,

that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the

matter being dealt with by the Court and facts however do always

vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the

society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a

guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should

and ought always be coupled with other circumstances warranting

the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic

consideration for the grant of bail more heinous is a crime, the

greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however,

dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed

to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture

though however, the same are only illustrative and nor exhaustive

neither there can be any. The considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the Court has to keep in mind not only

the nature of the accusations, but the severity of