DEEPAK SINGCHI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 03-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DEEPAK SINGClll 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
AUGUST 3, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.438-While dealing-with bail application, order must show proper 
application of mind by the Court-Court is required to satisfj; as to whether C 
\ 
there is a prima facie case-But exhaustive exploration of the merits of case 
is n~t necessary-Bail. 
S.438-Bail-Grant of-Determining factor-Stated 
The appellant-informant had reported about the murder of his brother D 
committed by accused persons. The accused filed bail application before the 
CJM who rejected the same. Additional Sessions Judge also dismissed the 
bail application filed before it Thereafter High Court was moved for grant of 
bail. The High Court granted bail. While granting bail, no reason was 
indicated in the impugned order as to why the bail was granted. The impugned E 
order is questioned by appellant before this Court. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court's order shows complete non-application of p 
mind even on a cursory perusal. Though detailed 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, yet a court dealing with the 
bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie 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 G 
in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. 
(Para 9) [791-E, F) 
Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176 and VD. 
787 
H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2005) 7 SCALE 68, relied on. 
2. 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 to consider among other circumstances, the 
B following factors also bef~re granting bail. They are: the nature of accusation 
and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of 
supporting evidence; reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness 
or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and primafacie satisfaction of 
the Court in support of the charge. [Para 10) [791-F, G, H; 792-A) 
c 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors., [2002) 3 SCC 
598; Puran etc. v. Rambi/as and Anr. etc. (2001) 6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra 
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav .& Anr., JT (2004) 3 SC 442; 
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC 540; Kamaljit Singh v. 
State of Punjab and Anr., [2005) 7 SCC 326; Gajanand Agarwal v. State of 
D Orissa and Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 543-544 of 2007 decided on 12.4.2007 
by Supreme Court, relied on. 
CPJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 002 of 
2007 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.10.2006 of the High Court of 
F 
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 
4381 of2006 
Sunil Kumar, Jitendra Jha, Shree Prakash Singh, Shekhar Kumar, 
A.K.Srivasatava and Manoj Prasad for the Appellant. 
Sushi! Kumar, Kumar Kartikay, Aruneshwar Gupta, L.K.Upadhyay, Neeraj 
Shekhar, N.Hariharan, Rajesh Kumar and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
_ G 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
-. 
...(-
""f -
Judge of the Raiasthan High Court at Jaipur, granting bail to the respondent 
l_ 
~ 
.. 
J 
no.2. (hereinafter called as the 'accused'). 
H 
3. Background facts in a n_utshell are as follows: 
I ,.. 
DEEP AK SINGCHI v. ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN [PASA Y AT, J.] 
789 
On 18.9.2002, appellant lodged report about the killing of his brother by A 
some persons. It surfaced during investigation that the accused and co-" 
accused Nasik Singh had hired two contact killers- Rohitas and Dharmendra 
for killing the deceased .. 
Application for bail was filed by the accused before the Additional 
Chief Jµdicial Magistrate, Jaipur, who by order dated 6.6.2006 rejected the B 
application. Application for bail filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Jaipur, was rejected by order dated 12.7.2006. It was, inter alia, noted as 
follows: 
"Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.