Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 836

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Patna)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Brijmani Devi – Appellant
Versus
Pappu Kumar and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1664 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6335, 7916 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Smarhar Singh, Shweta Kumari, Ashutosh Thakur, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):A. Karthik, Yogsh K. Ahirrao, Arsh Khan, Smrithi Suresh, Saaketh Kasibhatla, R. Basant, Yogesh K. Ahirrao, Astha Prasad, Ajit Pravin Wagh, Saket Singh, Niranjana Singh, Manish Kumar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of nature of crime, criminal antecedents of accused, if any, and nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis offence/s alleged against accused.
(2) It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when case is at initial stage and allegations of offences by accused would not have been crystallised as such.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – While liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of serious nature of accusations against an accused and facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion – While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of nature of crime, criminal antecedents of accused, if any, and nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis offence/s alleged against accused. (Para 25)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when case is at initial stage and allegations of offences by accused would not have been crystallised as such – There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail – At the same time, balance would have to be struck between nature of allegations made against accused; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; frivolity in case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused – Ultimately, Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with settled principles of law having regard to crime alleged to be committed by accused on one hand and ensuring purity of trial of case on other – While elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order de hors reasoning or bereft of relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail – It would be only a non speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice – In such a case prosecution or informant has a right to assail order before a higher forum. (Paras 26, 27 and 28)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Grant of bail – Murder charge – Appellant is mother of deceased – According to respondent-accused, there has been a history of enmity between accused and deceased – Respondent-accused has criminal antecedents – It is also case of appellant that respondent-accused had threatened informant mother of deceased – There is likelihood of respondent-accused absconding or threatening witnesses if on bail which would have a vital bearing on trial of cases – For securing respondent-accused herein for the purpose of commencement of trial in right earnest in both cases, as accused had earlier absconded, discretion could not have been exercised in favour of respondent-accused in instant cases – These cases not are fit cases for grant of bail to respondent-accused – Impugned orders passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 29, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred by the informant-appellant assailing the orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.11683 of 2021 and 26463 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to the accused who is common respondent in the appeals, in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.316 of 2017 respectively.
Findings of Court:
High court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and in very cryptic orders has granted bail to the respondent-accused. High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondent-accused.
Result : Appeals allowed.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the informant appellant assailing the orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 11683 of 2021 and 26463 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to the accused who is the common respondent in the appeals, in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 316 of 2017 respectively.

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the killing of her son and also the person who lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 93 of 2020 for offence of murder of her son under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and section 27 of the Arms Act against common respondent-accused herein viz. Pappu Kumar and one other person named Deepak Kumar.

4. That FIR No. 93/2020 dated 19.02.2020 is stated to have been filed by the appellant herein between 2.30 hrs and 3.00 hrs in the night stating that her son Rupesh Kumar aged about 35 years was sleeping in the room constructed on the roof top of her house. A relative, Deepak Kumar was also sleeping there. She was sleeping in another room which is beside the aforesaid room. She has further stated that she heard the sound of a person walking and also talking and then she saw that respondent-accused was present and he had a pistol in his hand and when he saw her, he caught her and forcefully tied her mouth with his Gamchha (towel) and he shot her son on the head from his pistol in front of her and Deepak Kumar too shot once at her son’s head. As a result, her son died. Other family members reached the spot upon hearing the firing sound. But the accused ran away waiving their pistols.

5. Earlier, FIR No. 316 of 2017 was lodged at Police Station Parsa Bazar by appellant’s deceased son himself viz. Rupesh Kumar for causing serious bullet injury to him, under sections 341, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, by giving a ferdbeyan against the very same respondent-accused herein and his two acquaintances to K.K. Verma, ASI, Shashtri Nagar P.S. District Patna, on 28.12.2017 at 7:57 p.m. at Emergency Ward, Paras Hospital, Patna. This ferdbeyan was given in respect of an incident which occurred on the previous day i.e. 27.12.2017 when he had gone to meet his friend Shailendra at Sipara. While Rupesh Kumar was returning from his friend’s house, the respondent-accused along with his two acquaintances caught him and respondent-accused fired and caused bullet injury to him. When Rupesh Kumar ran and reached a farmer’s house in the nearby village and narrated the entire story to him, he was taken to the police station on a motorcycle and had lodged FIR No. 316/2017.

6. According to the appellant, the respondent-accused herein had attempted to kill her son viz. Rupesh Kumar in the year 2017 by firing at him and an FIR was lodged being FIR No. 316 of 2017. But after lodging FIR No. 93 of 2020, the respondent-accused had absconded for about seven months. He had also threatened the appellant herein and exerted pressure on the appellant-informant and her family to withdraw the complaint, failing which he would eliminate the entire family. That a written complaint of the appellant dated 30.09.2020 was filed to the police, in pursuance of which complaint the respondent- accused was nabbed in connection with murder of Rupesh Kumar.

7. While on the run respondent-accused was arrested on 30.09.2020. The respondent- accused has been in judicial custody for a period of nine months till he was granted bail by the High Court.

8. In fact, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the respondent-accused herein in connection with FIR No. 316/2017. An order of remand to judicial custody was passed in connection with Naubatpur P.S. C