CHAMAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 16-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAMAN LAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
AUGUST 16, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Murder-Application for bail-Rejected by trial Court-Allowed by 
C High Court on the ground that name of the accused not recorded in FIR-
On appeal, Held : Before granting bail to accused, the Court should satisfy 
itself that on the basis of evidence, prima facie case against accused could 
not be made out-However, detailed examination of the evidence and 
elaborate documentation of the merit of the case to be avoided-Reasonable 
D apprehension of tempering of witness/threat to complainant does not 
exist-Order of the High Court indefensible as non-reasoned-Bail bonds 
of the accused cancelled-Penal Code, 1860-Section 3021120-B. 
Respondent No. 2 allegedly shot dead the deceased, a money 
E lender. FIR was lodged by a person who was not an eye witness, stating 
that an unknown assailant killed the deceased. However, on the basis 
of the statements made by other witnesses, accused-Respondent No. 2 
along with other two accused was taken to custody by the Police. 
Respondent No. 2 filed bail application, which was rejected by the trial 
F Court. High Court granted bail. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
It was contended by the appellant that grant of bail to a person 
accused of murder would obstruct the course of justice; and that the 
High Court granted the bail to accused even without examining the 
facts which weighed with the trial Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1.1. The High Court's order shows complete non-application 
of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate 
H documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court 
584 
CHAMAN LAL v. STATE 
585 
while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the A 
bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie 
I 
case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not 
necessary. The Court dealing with the application for bail is required 
to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of 
course. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for granting B 
bail particularly where an accused was charged of having committed 
a serious offence. [587-H; 588-A, BJ 
1.2. It is necessary for the Courts to· consider among other 
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail: 
(1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in 
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 
(2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or 
apprehension of threat to the complainant; 
(3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 
Any Order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application 
c 
D 
of mind. [588-C, D, E) 
E 
1.3. The cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly 
indefensible and is set aside. Though a conclusive finding in regard to 
the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering 
the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing F 
merits or demerits. The bail bonds of Respondent No. 2 are cancelled 
and he is directed to surrender to custody forthwith. It is clarified that 
no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. [588-H, F; 589-A) 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., [2002) 3 SCC 
598; Puran Etc. v. Rambilas & Anr. Etc., (2001) 6 sec 338 and Kalyan G 
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr., JT (2004) 
3 SC 442, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
8%~~. 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.2003 of the Allahabad High 
B 
c 
D 
Court in Crl. M. No. I 0985 of 2003. 
Amarendra Sharan, R.K. Kapur, B.R. Kapur; M.K. Verma and 
Sudarsh Menon for the Appellant. 
Sahdev Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for State. 
W.A. Nomani for the Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
Grant of bail to respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') 
has been challenged in this appeal. 
Background facts as projected by the appellant essentially are as 
follows:-
One Prem Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was 
engaged in the business of money lending. He had advanced a loan of 
E Rs. 2 lakhs to one of the accused persons named Naeem. On 11.3.2003, 
the deceased was called to the factory of one Kami!, wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.