GAJANAND AGARWAL versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 18-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GAJANAND AGARWAL 
A 
V. 
ST A TE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 438-Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 406-Dowiy Prohibition Act, 1961-Section 4 
-Bail applications of accused rejected by trial Court .and High Court on C 
earlier occasions-Bail granted by the High Court subsequently without stating 
any reasons--Correctness of-Held, a Court dealing with a bail application 
is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and should state 
the reasons for granting bail in its order-Any order dehors of such reasons 
suffers from non-application of mind-Hence, the High Court is directed to 
reconsider bail applications in accordance with law keeping in view the D 
principles set in. 
Two accused with other family members were charged by 
proseeution for offences under sections 498A, 3048, 302 and 406 read with 
section 34 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Several E 
bail applications were filed initially by the accused before trial court and 
High Court which were rejected. The High Court, in fresh bail applications 
moved by the accused, granted bail holding that it is granted in peculiar 
facts and circumstances of the case. 
Appellant, who is the father of the deceased, filed appeals before this p 
Court challenging the grant of bail to the two aceused by High Court. The 
appellant contended that the High Court has not given any reasons for 
grant of bail; and that it did not refer to various orders passed by the 
trial court and the High Court rejecting the bail applications on earlier 
occasions. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. On a cursory perusal of the High Court order granting 
bail, it shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed 
349 
G 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 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 wh.:ther there is a prima facie case. Exhaustive exploration 
of the merits' of the case is not necessary. The Court dealing with the 
B application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious 
manner and not as a matter of course. (356-C, DI 
Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul & Anr .. JT (2004) 2 SC 176; State of 
Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AIR 184 SC 444 and V.D. 
Chaudhary v. State of VIiar Pradesh & Anr., (2005) 7 SCALE 68, referred 
C to. 
1.2 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 
D circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are : 
E 
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 change. 
Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of 
mind. (356-D, E, F, G( 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002( 3 SCC 598; 
F Puran etc. v. Rambilas & Anr. etc., (2001 ( 6 sec 338; Kalyan Chandra 
Sekhar v. Rajesh Ranjan ((!) Pappu Yadav & Anr., JT (2004) 3 SC 442; 
Chaman lalv. State of UP. & Anr., JT (200416 SCC 540 and Kamaljit Singh 
v. State of Punjab & Anr .. (20051 7 SCC 326, referred to. 
G 
1.3. There is no mention about the State's stand in the impugned 
orders of the High Court. The callousness of the State is deprecated. 
(357-D( 
Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh & Anr .. (2002( 9 SCC 670, referred to. 
H 
1.4 . The orders of bail are not necessary orders of any precedent 
GAJANAND AGARWAL v. STATE OF ORISSA [PASAYAT. J.) 
351 
value. (357-Ef 
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Rajesh Syal, (200218 SCC 158, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cinnirtal Appeal No. 972 
of 2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.6.2006 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in BLAPL Case No. 4575/2006. 
With Crl. A.No. 973/2006. 
A 
B 
U.U. Lalit, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biwas, Visha Anand, Manish P.S. C 
Chouhan and Sarla Chandra for the Appellant. 
Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Jana Kalya
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.