MAHIPAL versus RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 05-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 23 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
MAHIPAL
v.
RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1843 of 2019)
DECEMBER 05, 2019
 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY,  JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail –
Complainant’s case was that the victim-deceased was his nephew
and was assaulted by the respondents-accused while the deceased
and his friend were on their way on a bike – Victim-deceased
suffered head injuries which resulted in his death – Bail application
of first respondent was allowed by High Court – Complainant-
appellant filed instant appeal challenging the order of High Court
enlarging the first respondent on bail – Held: A court assessing a
plea of bail is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility
of the commission of the crime by the accused and not conclude
that the alleged crime was in fact committed by the accused beyond
reasonable doubt – As per postmortem report, the victim-deceased
was inflicted head injuries – Medical Board was of opinion that he
died of head injuries – The statement of the friend of the deceased
who was allegedly present with the deceased at the time of the
incident was recorded under s.161 – The statement details the alleged
incident and names all five accused, attributing to them the common
intention to kill the deceased – It was stated that the accused
thereafter drove away with the bike of the deceased – The order
passed by the High Court failed to notice material facts and showed
non-application of mind to the seriousness of the crime – High Court
erred in not considering material relevant to the determination of
whether the accused were to be enlarged on bail – Order of the
High Court enlarging the accused on bail is erroneous and is set
aside – Criminal Justice System – Bail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Grant/
Rejection of bail – Determining factors – Held: The determination
of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing
of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 529
529
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement
of the accused are important – No straight jacket formula exists for
courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail –
At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail,
the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the
evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused – That is a matter for trial –
However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the
continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the
criminal justice system.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Where bail
has been granted by a lower court – Scope of interference – Held:
Appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by
the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Power of
an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting
bail vis-a-vis application for the cancellation of bail – Determining
factors – Held: The considerations that guide the power of an
appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting
bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application
for the cancellation of bail – The correctness of an order granting
bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or
arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail – The test is
whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified –
On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is
generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening
circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to
whom bail has been granted.
Judicial discipline: Reasoned/Speaking order while granting/
rejecting bail – It is a fundamental premise of open justice that
factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection
or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed  – Open justice
is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done – The duty
of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this
co

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