GAJANAND AGARWAL versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 12-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GAJANAND AGARWAL 
v. 
r 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
APRIL 12, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993: 
/ 
c 
. s.438-Whi/e dealing with bail application in case of alleged dowry 
death, order must show proper application of mind by the Judge-Passing 
an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidence is impermissible-It 
should only indicate whether there was a Prima facie case in view of settled 
principles about nature of crime and manner of commission of offence-Bail. 
D 
s.438-Bail-Grant of-Determining factor-Discussed. 
Prosecution case was that daughter of appellant-complainant was 
married to respondent No.2-accused. Within 5 months of marriage, she was 
•. 
found dead. The case was registered against respondent no.2 and his family 
members u/ss. 498A, 304 8, 302, 406 r.w. s.34 IPC and s.4 of the Dowry 
E Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent No.2 was arrested and other accused 
persons were found to be absconding. 
The accused persons filed bail applications number of times before 
Sessions Judge and under s.438 Cr.P.~. before High Court which were 
rejected. 
F 
The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet before the SDJM 
indicating that Prima facie case has been made out against the accused 
persons. These accused persons again filed bail applications which was 
rejected. 
G 
High Court granted bail to parents-in-law. Thereafter bail was also 
granted to respondent no.2 by High Court. The same was challenged before 
this Court. This Court set aside the order on several grounds. The High Court 
reconsidered the matter and by impugned orders accepted the prayer for bail. 
\/,. 
H 
68 
' 
. \ 
GAJANANDAGARWALv. STATEOFORJSSA 
69 
In appeals to this court; appellants contended that basic ground on which A 
the earlier orders granting the bail were set aside, were that the earlier orders 
rejecting prayer were not taken into consideration; that the orders were 
practically non-reasoned; that the High Court has not only tried to justify the 
grant of bail on the earlier occasion, but also has practically recorded order 
of acquittal to the accused respondent no.I in each case and that while dealing 
with the bail application, view on merits is not to be expressed and it was only B 
necessary to indicate reasons for grant of bail and not detailed analysis of 
the evidence on record, with regard to the nature of the offence and the 
evidentiary value of the materials on record. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The cursory perusal of High Court's order shows complete 
non-application of mind. 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 Primafacie case, but D 
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. [Para 11) [75-G; 76-AJ 
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 E 
charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts 
dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the 
following factors also before granting bail, they are - 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 F 
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 of mind. [Para 12 and 13) [76-B-D) 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598; 
Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. [20011 6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra G 
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu & Anr., JT [2004) 3 SC 442; Chaman 
Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT [2004) 6 SC 540; Kamal) it Singh v. State of 
Punjab and Anr., [2005) 7 SCC 326; Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and 
Anr. JT [2004) 2 SC 176 and V.D. Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 
Anr .. (2005) 7 SCALE 68, relied on. 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The High Court has given findings which could have been given at 
, 
the trial. In fact, 

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