LexASH MOHAMMAD versus SHIV RAJ SINGH @ LALLA BABU AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 7 S.C.R. 584 ASH MOHAMMAD v. SHIV RAJ SINGH @ LALLA BABU AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Bail - Grant of - Duty of the Court - Allegation that on instructions of accused-respondent, two persons abducted the C victim under threat whereafter the victim was kept in confinement for eight days and tortured - Respondent was a history-sheeter and a number of criminal cases were pending against him - He was denied bail by the trial court - High Court, however, granted him bail u/s. 439 CrPC on certain D conditions - On appeal; held: The High Court, in toto, ignored the criminal antecedents of the respondent - What weighed with the High Court was that the respondent had spent seven months in custody - Though period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the E criminal antecedents of the respondent could not have been totally ignored - Granting of bail is a matter of discretion for the• High Court and the Supreme Court is slow to interfere with such orders -But regard being had to the antecedents of the respondent, the nature of the crime committed and the F confinement of the victim for eight days, the order of the High Court is required to be interfered with - The instant appeal was not an appeal for cancellation of bail as cancellation was not sought because of supervening circumstances - It was basically an appeal challenging grant of bail where the High G Court failed to take into consideration the relevant material factors which made its order perverse - Societal concern in the case at hand deserved to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the respondent - Consequently, order passed by the High Court set aside and respondent directed H 584 ASH MOHAMMAD v. SHIV RAJ SINGH @ LALLA 585 BABU AND ANR. to surrender to custody forthwith - Code of Criminal Procedure, A 1973 - s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 364 and 506. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Liberty - Sanctity ,of - Restrictions imposed by law - Necessity of collective security - Held: Though liberty is a greatly cherished value B in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the fife or liberty of others is jeopardized, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act. The appellant lodged an FIR alleging that while he was going to his in-laws' place along with 'B', two persons came on a motorcycle and after inquiring about the identity of 'B' told him that they had been asked by c the respondent to compel him to accompany them; and D that as there was resistance, they threatened to kill him . and eventually made 'B' sit in between them on the motorcycle and fled away. Consequently, a case was registered under Section 364 and 506 of IPC against the accused-respondent who was thereafter arrested and taken into custody. The respondent filed bail application before the trial court, which taking note of the allegations in the FIR and the stand put forth in opposition by the prosecution as well as by the victim, and thereafter, taking note of the fact that the respondent was a history- sheeter and involved in number of cases rejected his bail application. Thereafter the respondent filed bail application before the High Court under Section 439 CrPC. The High Court directed his enlargement on bail on certain conditions. The instant appeal was preferred assailing the legal defensibility of the order passed by the High Court and praying for quashment of the same. The appellant contended that the High Court had absolutely misdirected E F G H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A itself by not appositely considering the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the gravity of the offences and criminal antecedents of the respondent and further the affidavit filed by the prosecution bringing number of factors as a consequence of which an illegal B order enlarging the appellant on bail had come into existence. The appellant submitted that the non- consideration of the material facts vitiated the order of the High Court and annulment of the same was the judicial warrant. c D The question that therefore arose for consideration was whether the order passed by the High Court was legitima
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.