GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 29-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 131 
GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA 
A 
II. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2008 etc.) 
JANUARY 29, 2008 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Bail: 
Grant of bail - In murder case - On the grounds that c 
temporary bail not misused by the accused; delay in 
commencement of trial and long stay of accused in judicial 
custody - Cancellation sought - Held: Prima facie a case for 
grant of bail not made out - In the facts of the case, grounds 
for grant of bail are not tenable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973- s. 439. 
D 
'I' 
Bail application - Consideration of - Detailed findings 
by the judge touching upon the merits of the case - Held: Not 
permissible - Detailed examination to be avoided so that no 
pre-judging and no prejudice is caused. 
E 
Cancellation of bail - When - Held: Interference with the 
order granting bail is required when bail is granted by 
completely ignoring basic requirements for grant of bail. 
Grant of bail - Grounds to be considered - Discussed. 
F 
The appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 199 of 2008 lodged a 
report i.e. case No. 1-25/2004 u/ss. 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 
341, 307, 120B and 201 IPC; u/ss. 25(1) (a) and 27 of Arms 
Act; and u/s 135 of Bombay Police Act. While the 
respondent was released on anticipatory bail, another G 
~ 
case was registered i.e. Case No. 1-173/05 by the appellant 
in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2008 u/ss. 143, 148, 149, 447 
and 302 IPC and u/s 23 (1) (b) of Arms Act. Respondent 
was named therein as one of the assailants. Thereafter, 
131 
H 
-+-
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A the respondent surrendered after cancellation of 
anticipatory bail. His application for grant of regular bail 
was dismissed by High Court. Thereafter, on two 
occasions temporary bail was granted to the respondent. 
When the respondent again filed application for grant of 
B regular bail, it was granted by High Court on three· grounds 
viz. (i) that the respondent was in judicial custody since 
March, 2004; (ii) that trial had yet not commenced and no 
prosecution witness had been examined; and (iii) that the 
Court had tested the respondent twice by granting 
c temporary bail to him with stringent conditions and, on 
both the occasions, the respondent had surrendered 
within time, without breach of any of the conditions. 
D 
In the meantime, the respondents-accused in Crl. A. 
No. 198/2008 were also granted bail. 
The present appeals were filed seeking cancellation 
of bail in both the matters. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From a reading of the impugned order it 
E is found that the Judge, who incidentally happens to be 
the same Judge who had declined to release the 
respondent on bail earlier, did not advert to any of the 
reasons given by him declining to release the respondent 
on bail. There was no change of circumstances. The 
F reasons given by the Judge in the impugned order for 
grant of bail are untenable. [Para 20] [141-F] 
1.2 The respondent did not misuse his liberty while 
on temporary bail twice by itself is no ground to grant bail 
G in a murder case especially when he was allegedly 
involved in a subsequent case of murder. Apart from the 
present two cases of murder, respondent has been named 
in 1 O other criminal cases in the last 25 years or so, out of 
which 5 cases were under Section 307 IPC for attempt to 
H murder and another under Section 302 IPC for committing 
--t-
GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA v. STATE OF 
133 
GUJARAT & ORS. 
murder. The Bar that the respondent has been acquitted A 
in most of the cases for want of sufficient evidence. This 
speaks volumes. [Para 21] [141-G-H; 142-A] 
1.3 The other reason given for granting bail, is that 
the trial of the case has not progressed I begun. From the B 
record it is found that in a time span of about six months, 
the case was listed before the trial court 31 times and on 
.,, 
each date, it had to be adjourned on the ground that one 
or the other accused was not present. The complainants 
were not in any way instrumental in delaying the trial c 
between 2nd June, 2004 and 19th December, 2005. The 
only witness who has been examined so far has turned 
hostile. Facts of the case also show that the trial was not 
progressing smoothly. In any case, complainant party was 
in no way responsible for any delay in trial. [Para 22] 
[142-8-F] 
D 
1.4 The third reason given by the High Court for grant 
of bail, that the respondent had been in jail for th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.