DATARAM SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 06-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
DATARAM SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 06, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Bail:
FIR against appellant (accused) u/ss. 419, 420, 406 and 506
IPC and complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – During
investigation, appellant not arrested – While rejecting his petition
for quashing the FIR, High Court granted two months time to appear
before trial judge – Once again High Court granted him further
two months time to appear before trial Judge – Thereafter, on
appellant’s appearing before trial judge, taken into judicial custody
– Bail applications rejected by trial court as well as High Court –
On appeal, held: An important facet of criminal jurisprudence is
that grant of bail is the general rule and putting the person in jail is
an exception – Grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of
the judge – Exercise of such discretion though unfettered, must be
exercised judicially in a humane manner and compassionately – If
the Investigating Officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigation, a strong case should be made
out for placing that person in judicial custody – Conduct/
participation of accused in the investigation; fact as to whether
accused is first-time offender; nature of offences; general conduct
of accused; indigent status of accused are to be taken into
consideration while granting bail – In the present case, accused
was not arrested during the investigation – Facts indicate that there
was no apprehension that the accused would abscond or hamper
with trial – Courts below were required to judiciously exercise
discretion and grant bail to the accused – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s. 436 Explanation; s.436 A – Penal Code, 1860
– ss.419, 420, 406 and 506 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 –
s.138.
   882
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. An important facet of criminal jurisprudence is
that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in
jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression
one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of
these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the
result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and
for longer periods. This does not do any good to criminal
jurisprudence or to the society. [Para 2] [885-F-G]
2. The grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of
the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial
discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions
rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country.
Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and
in the circumstances of a case. While so introspecting, among
the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused
was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has
the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses.  If the investigating officer does not find it necessary
to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case
should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody
after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding
or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely,
if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is
hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being
victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider
in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to
consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been
accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences
and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed
indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor
and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an
Explanation to Section 436 Cr.P.C. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section
436A in Cr.P.C. [Paras 3-4] [885-H; 886-A-E]
DATARAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
3. A humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge,
while dealing with an applic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.