LexJAI PRAKASH SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 1 JAi PRAKASH SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 525-526 of 2012) MARCH 14, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - On facts, FIR registered against respondent C for commission of offence u/ss. 302134 /PC - FIR was iodged promptly within two hours from the time of incident - Deceased received multiple abrasions and five gun shot injuries - There was a strong motive between the parties - High Court enlarged the respondents on anticipatory bail - Sustainability of - Held: o Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty - High Court did not apply any of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court for grant of E anticipatory bail, and rather dealt with a very serious matter in a most casual and cavalier manner - High Court ought to have exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction considering the nature and gravity of the offence and as the FIR had been lodged spontaneously, its veracity is reliable - High Court did not consider as to whether custodial interrogation was required F and also did not record any reason as to how the pre-requisite condition incorporated in the statutory provision itself stood fulfilled - Order de hors the grounds provided in s. 438 itself suffers from non-application of mind - Thus, orders passed by the High Court set aside. G FIR - Promptness in filing - Object of - Effect on the prosecution case - Stated. 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012} 5 S.C.R. A FIR was lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. It is alleged that the respondents opened indiscriminate firing at the deceased. The deceased received 5 bullet injuries on his person resulting in his death on the spot. 10-15 B days ago, the respondent had threatened the complainant to kill him and his brother on account of old dispute between the parties. The respondents applied for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge rejected the same. However, the High Court enlarged the respondents on c anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The FIR had been lodged promptly within 0 a period of two hours from the time of incident at midnight. Promptness in filing the FIR gives certain assurance of veracity of the version given by. the informant/complainant. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and E who was responsible for the offence in question. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early F information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye- witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of G coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/ deliberations. [Paras 11 and 12) [10-B-E] Thu/ia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501: H 1972 (3) SCR 622 ; State of Punjab v. Surja Ram AIR 1995 JAi PRAKASH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 3 ETC. SC 2413: 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 590; Girish Yadav and Ors. A v. State of MP. (1996) 8 SCC 186:1996 (3) SCR 1021; Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 37 - relied on. 1.2 There is no substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. so far as appreciation of the 8 case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion C conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. [Para 13) [10-G-H; 11- A] State of M.P. and Anr. v. Ram Kis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.