LexMASROOR versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1030 A MASROOR ..... - v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2009) B APRIL 27, 2009 [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 - Bail - Prosecution of accused u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 /PC c - Bail granted by High Coult - On appeal, held: Bail granted ignoring basic principles for grant of bail - In view of nature of offence and in the background in which it was committed, bail should not have been granted Bail - Grant of - Criteria for - Discussed. D Respondent No. 2-accused alongwith 21 accused, ... ,... was prosecuted u/s. 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC. Bail application of the respondent-accused was rejected by Sessions Judge. However, bail was granted by High E Court. Hence, the present appeal by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Normally this Court does not interfere "I ~ F with the order of the High Court relating to grant or rejection of bail but in the instant case, the High Court has completely ignored the basic principles which are to be kept in view while dealing with an application filed u/ s. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and has thus, committed a G manifest error in the matter of grant of bail to the second respondent, warranting interference by this Court. [Para ,.. ~ 11) [1037-B-D] -. 1.2. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the H 1030 - +- MASROOR v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 1031 . . second respondent has been charged with, the A . background in which these were committed and the stage of the trial, the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the respondent and set him free~ [Para 14] [1038- F] 1.3. High Court has not indicated any reason B whatsoever for grant of bail. There is no consideration of any of the factors, like nature of the offence; the evidence collected by the prosecution and forming part of the chargesheet and the circumstances under which the offences were committed, all relevant for deciding the C question whether the bail should be granted or not. Failure in not indicating any reason for grant of bail particularly when charges against the second respondent are serious, makes his order indefensible. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of D evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is not to be undertaken but that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was granted are not to be indicated, which is the case here. [Para 15] [1039-E-H] E Puran etc. etc. v. Rambi/as and Anr. etc. etc. 2001 (6) SCC 338; Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana v. Ashok Kumar Harakfal Mitta/ and Ors. JT 2002 (2) SC 431; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. 2002 (3) SCC 598; F Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. 2004 (7) sec 528, relied on. 2. It is trite to state. that the Court granting bail has to exercise its discretion in.a judicious manner with care and caution and not as a matter of course. Though at the G ""'+ stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided but there is a need to indicate in such order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. A granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. , It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the factors viz. (a) The B nature of accusation and the te' 1erity of punishment in case of conviction and the r.ature of supporting evidence, (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension. of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in c support of the charge. [Para 12] [1037-D-F] D Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh 2002 (3) SCC 598; Puran v. Rambilas 2001 (6) SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. 2004 (7) sec 528, relied on. 3. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty E of an individual and the interest of the socie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.