DINESH M.N. (S.P.) versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 28-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1134 
DINESH M.N. (S.P.) 
II. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2008) 
APRIL 28, 2008 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 - Bail - Grant 
and cancellation of - Parameters for -Accused a high ranking 
c police officer - Charged of fake encounters - Trial court 
granting bail on the ground that person killed in encounter 
was hardened criminal - Cancellation of bail by High Court 
holding that trial court did not keep in view seriousness of 
offences and involvement of accused - Justification of- Held: 
0 Justified - The court dealing with application for cancellation 
of bail can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken 
into consideration while granting bail - Irrelevant materials 
should be substantial in nature and not of a trivial nature -
Comparative past conduct and antecedents of the person 
encountered and good official record of accused could not be 
E ground to grant bail - Since trial court took irrelevant materials 
into consideration while granting bail and kept relevant 
materials out of consideration, High Court rightly ordered 
cancellation of bail. 
F 
The appellant was a member of a Special 
Investigating party which was formed to investigate into 
the various offences registered against one 'S' under IPC, 
Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. The FIR filed against 'S' 
stated that he was acting on behalf of 151 to spread terror 
and to disturb unity and integrity of the country and also 
G had entered into conspiracy to kill one of the big leaders 
of Gujarat and when he was asked to surrender by the 
police party, he fired from his revolver and attempted to 
kill them. 
H 
1134 
... 
DINESH M.N. (S.P.) v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
1135 
. Later on, brother of 'S' filed writ petition before this A 
Court. Pursuant to the directions issued from time to time, 
the Investigation Agency of the State of Gujarat carried 
out investigation and it was found by the Investigating 
Agency that death of 'S' and subsequently reported death 
of his wife was a result of fake encounters carried out on 
B 
26.11.2005 by the then officers of the Anti-Terrorist Squad 
(ATS) and that senior IPS officers of State of Gujarat and 
State of Rajasthan were involved in the fake encounters. 
All those officers were arrested and appellant who was 
accused No.3 was one of such senior IPS officers c 
belonging to the State of Rajasthan. 
During the course of investigation, preliminary 
. inquiry was instituted by CID (Crime), and role of the 
appellant surfaced in the statement of one Police 
constable of ATS, Gujarat State. Considering the material D 
i'.· 
which had come on record, the Director General of Police 
ordered further investigation. Accordingly, the Magistrate 
was informed and the appellant was arraigned as 
accused. He was arrested. The appellant preferred a 
regular bail application. 
· 
E 
The trial court considered various circumstances for 
considering the bail application and held that sufficient 
evidence did not surface against the accused for having 
committed any heinous crime punishable with death or 
imprisonment for life. Further the trial court, after F 
discussing the credentials of 'S' that as many as 25 FIRs 
were lodged against him and considering the remarkable 
service record of the accused, observed that police 
officers like him should not be allowed to be harassed 
and humiliated unless strong prima facie evidence or the G 
material for committing a serious offence is found. The 
bail application was allowed. The State moved application 
for cancellation of bail. 
The High Court held that the trial court did not keep 
H 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
li. 
A in view the seriousness of the offences, punishments 
prescribed for such offences and involvement of the 
accused, a high ranking officer when allegations or misuse 
of power necessary in law by registering false FIR has 
been lost sight of. The comparative past conduct and 
B antecedents of 'S' by the so called good official record of 
the accused could not have been a ground for grant of 
bail. Accordingly, the bail granted was cancelled. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The parameters for grant of bail and 
cancellation of bail are different. But the question is if the 
trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials 
or takes into account irrelevant materials whether bail can 
D be ca

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