LexKANWAR SINGH MEENA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 847 KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1662 of 2012) OCTOBER 16, 2012 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Considerations for - Held: The primary considerations are whether accused likely to tamper with C evidence; whether bail was granted ignoring relevant materials indicating prima facie case or whether bail was granted on irrelevant materials - On facts, the bail order was passed ignoring relevant evidence indicating prima facie case against the accused and ignoring the fact that brother of the D accused, an /PS officer was influencing the investigation - In a gruesome crime, High court exercised its discretion to grant bail in an arbitrary and casual manner - Bail order suffers from serious infirmities and hence legally not tenable. A criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2 accused and 5 others u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 IPC. High Court released respondent No. 2 - accused on bail. The appellant-complainant filed this appeal against the bail order. The complainant contended that the High Court released the accused on bail ignoring the principles which guide the courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail and also over-looked vital evidence collected E F by the Investigating agency in the case and the fact that G the brother of the accused was an IPS officer and was influencing the investigation. Disposing of the appeal, the Court 847 H A 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012J 10 S.C.R. HELD: 1.1 Section 439 Cr.P.C. confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity B of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course c of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only o opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the E accused of a fair trial. [Para 10] [856-E-H; 857-A] 1.2 While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due F course of justice or evade the due course of justice. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating G prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized H principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders KANWAR SINGH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 849 &ANR. are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage A of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders B particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Supreme Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or c cancellation of bail. [Para 10] (857-A-F] 2. In the interest of justice, the impugned order granting bail to the accused deserves to be quashed. The order passed by the High Court releasing the accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.