LexBHUVANESHWAR YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R 750 A BHUVANESHWAR YADAV +· v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2008) B NOVEMBER 28, 2008 (DR; ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKANDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 - Bail - c Grant of - Reqording of reasons - Necessity for - Accused convicted for serious offence - High Court rejected ·bail application filed during pendency of appeal - However, granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months - Su~sequently, bail granted on the prayer J?1ade - Correctness D of - Held: Order of High Court granting liberty to renew the prayer for bail though it noticed that bail was rejected earlier, does not show that there was entitlement for bail - It shows ill total non-,application of mind - Thus, order of High Court set ~ aside. E The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to respondent no. 2 and 3 who were convicted uls. 302 IPC. and s. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, F by a non-reasoned order. / ... Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious G manner and notas a matter of course. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding • ,... ' why bail was being granted particularly where an accused -~· was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail H 750 I . A BHUVANESHWAR YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR AND 751 ORS. to consider among other circumstances, the following A factors: (i) the nature of accusation and the s~verity of punishment in case of 'conviction and the ·nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (iii) prima facie satisfaction· of the Court in B support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of ·-mind. DetaUed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders. on bail applications. c [Paras 8, 9 and 10] [754-H; 755-A-D] 1.2. In the instant case, the satisfaction about guilt of the accused has been arrived at whi.le recording conviction. The position was not different when the application is made during pendency of an appeal after D conviction has been recorded. The High Court noticed that earlier the bail was rejected, but liberty was granted to renew the prayer after six months. That does not in any way show that there was entitlement for getting the bail. The order of the High Court shows total non- E application of mind and therefore, is set aside. Tl:te bail application would be reconsidered on merits and disposed of by a reasoned order. [Paras 11 and 14) [755- E; 756-C-D] F Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr. JT 2004 (2) SC 176; V.D. Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr . 2005 (7) SCALE 68; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. ·sudarshan Singh and Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 598; Puran etc. V. Rambilas and Anr. etc. 2001 (6) SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. G Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. JT 2004 (3) SC 442; Chaman Lal v. Sate of U.P. and Anr. JT 2004 (6) SC 540 and Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohd. 2005 (7) SCC 326, referred to. H A B c 752 SUPREME COURT REPbRTS [2009] 16 S.C.R. ... ~ j :· : R.~fe_n@d ttl: Para 6. JT. 2004. (2) $.C 176 2005 (7) SCALE 6d Re'ferred fo: · .Pua '1 2002 (3) ·sec sgs Referred to. Para 1o 2001 (6) .sec 338 Referred t61 Pa·ra 10 JT 2004 (3) SC 442 Referft!d to1 Para 10 JT 2004 (6) SC 540 Referred to1 Para 12 2005 (7) sec 326 Referred to. Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2008. D - From the Order and Judgment dated 1··4.3.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna hi Crl. Appeal No. 90 of 2004 (D.B.) , Akhilesh Kumar Pandey for the Appellant. E Ma_nish Kumar and Gopal Singh for the Respondent. ' . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by b'R. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J: 1. Leave granted. F 2. Challenge in this a'ppeal is to the order pas'se·d by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court granting bail to' Respondents 2 and 3 who were convicted for offence - punishable under secticm 302.of the lndia'nPehal Code, 1860 · (in short the 'IPC') and under Section 27 of the Arms Aet, 1959 G (in short the ;Ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.