MEENA DEVI versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 13-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
MEENA DEVI
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2022)
MAY 13, 2022
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Bail – Grant/
cancellation of – When – Held: Power of the High Court u/s. 439 is
wide – Exercise of the said discretionary powers vested in the Court
when considering grant of bail ought to be in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course – If an order is passed without proper
application of mind or in contravention of directions of this court,
it would be susceptible to interference – When it comes to assessing
an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court looks
out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances or any violation
of the conditions of bail imposed on the person who has been
accorded such a relief – On facts, the impugned order enlarging
the accused on bail is cryptic and non-speaking demonstrated non-
application of mind – High Court erred in not offering any reason,
good, bad or indifferent and mechanically recorded the submissions
– Thus, looking at the gravity of the offence committed by the
respondent no.2 u/s. 302 and the award of life imprisonment, and
also having regards to his criminal antecedents that he is a hardened
criminal with several cases registered against him, the bail is
cancelled.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power to grant bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide ranging.
Nonetheless, the exercise of the said discretionary powers vested
in the Court when considering grant of bail, ought to be in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. [Para 16][32-D]
1.2 Ordinarily, this Court would refrain from interfering with
an order passed by the High Court, either granting or rejecting
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 23
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
the relief of bail to an accused. However, wherever it is noticed
that such a discretion has been exercised by the High Court
without proper application of mind or in contravention of the
directions issued by this Court, such an order shall be susceptible
to interference. [Para 17][33-D-E]
1.3 The considerations that weigh with the appellate court
when called upon to examine the correctness of an order granting
bail is not on the same footing when it comes to examining an
application moved for cancellation of bail. The yardstick for
testing the correctness of an order granting bail is whether the
court below has exercised its discretion in an improper or arbitrary
manner thereby vitiating the said order. When it comes to
assessing an application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate
court looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances
or any violation of the conditions of bail imposed on the person
who has been accorded such a relief. [Para 21][36-C-D]
1.4 A glance at the impugned order passed by the High
Court is to state the least, cryptic and non-speaking, amply
demonstrating non-application of mind. The High Court appears
to have shut its eyes to the common submissions that the
respondent No.2 is a hardened criminal with several cases
registered against him. List of cases registered against the
accused reveals that he has faced/is still facing trial in the thirty-
seven cases registered against him under the IPC, Arms Act,
1959, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970,
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, etc., where the offences are grave in nature.
[Para 24][39-D-F]
1.5 In the past decade, six cases more have been registered
against the respondent No.2, The list that has been furnished to
this Court by the respondent No.1-State, does not mention eleven
cases that had been mentioned in the list of cases pending against
the respondent no.2. If the said cases are added to the current
list of thirty-seven criminal cases registered against the accused,
the number of criminal cases registered against the him would
swell to fifty. [Para 27][42-G-H; 43-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
1.6 The High Court failed to factor in the relevant material
before passing an order enlarging the respondent No.2 on bail.
The High Court also seriously erred in not offering any reason,
good, bad or indifferent, for exercising its discretion in favour of
the said respondent. There is no reference made to any particular
element that persuaded the High Court to pa

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