LOKESH SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 21-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l . 
. [2008] 14S.C.R. 980 
+ 
A 
LOKESH SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1649 Of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 21, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
·~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 - Bail - Grant 
of, without indicating reasons - Propriety of- Held: Not proper 
c - It is duty of Court to indicate reasons for granting bail. 
Prosecution case was that the deceased was shot 
dead by some unknown persons. During investigation, it 
was found that respondent no.2 and another person 'SBS' 
had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit murder 
D of deceased and the said 'SBS' arranged two shooters 
).._ 
who caused death of the deceased. In order to show com-
-.! 
plicity of respondent no.2, reference was made to the 
statement of one 'MK' who claimed to have overheard the 
conversation of respondent no.2 and 'SBS' before the 
E incident relating to the plan of the murder of the deceased. 
Prayer for bail was rejected by Sessions Judge. High 
Court noted that the son of the deceased and 'MK' did 
not disclose the involvement of respondent no.2 at the 
first instance and it was only in their statement recorded 
}-
F 
under s.161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded after 2- 1/2 months 
~ 
from date of incident that they disclosed his involvement 
in the offence and that the evidence collected by investi-
gating officer put dent in prosecution case and therefore 
respondent no.2 was entitled to be enlarged on bail. 
G 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appel-
!ant-complainant that the High Court had practically writ-
t-
ten a judgment of acquittal by not only referring to the 
incriminating materials but also in concluding about their 
H 
980 
LOKESH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
981 
-+-
unreliability and that was not the correct way of dealing A 
with an application for bail. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court was not justified in granting 
bail to respondent No.2. [Para 14] (987-E) 
B 
~ 
1.2. ·While dealing with an application for bail, there 
is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie 
concluding why bail was being granted particularly when 
accused was charged of having committed a serious of-
fence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with applica- c 
tion for bail to consider among other circumstances, the 
following factors also before granting bail, they are, (i) the 
nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in 
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 
_.. 
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness D 
~ 
or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (iii) Prima 
facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 
Any order de hors reasons suffers from non-application 
of mind. (Paras 8, 9] (985-8 to E) 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. 
E 
(2002) 3 SCC 598; Puran etc. v. Ram bi/as and Anr. etc. (2001) 
6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias 
Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT (2004) 3 SC 442 - relied on. 
4 
1.3. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the 
' 
F 
points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court 
considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is dif-
ferent from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of 
granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and 
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not G 
_, 
to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while grant-
ing .bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail 
was being granted is not required to be indicated. [Para 
1 OJ (985-F, G, H) 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu H 
_) 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528; Puran v. Rambilas and 
Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338 - referred to. 
B 
c 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
(2002) 3 sec 598 
relied on 
(2001) 6 sec 338 
relied on 
JT (2004) 3 SC 442 
(2004) 1 sec 528 
(2001) s sec 338 
relied on 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 9 
Para 9 
Para 9 
Para 11 
Para 13 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1649 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.3.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow 
D 
in Crl. Misc. Case No. 999 (B) of 2007 
Anoop G. Choudhary, Vaibhav Kalia, Prem Malhotra and 
Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant. 
Pramod Swarup, Savitri Pandey, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, 
Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Ardhendumauli K. Prasad; Taruna 
E 
A. Prasad, !shit Saharia andKishan Datta forthe Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court

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