LexPANCHANAN MISHRA versus DIGAMBAR MISHRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PANCHANAN MISHRA v. DIGAMBAR MISHRA AND ORS. JANUARY I 7, 2005 B [ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-lnterference with order of High Court granting bail- C Accused convicted and sentenced by trial court of offences punishable u!ss. 109,148,302 and 307-IPC etc.-ln appeal, High Court by a non-speaking order granting bail-Held, the non-speaking order passed by High Court shows total non-application of mind by it to gravity of crime, apprehension of tampering with evidence and threats to life of complainant and other witnesses 0 by accused-The case on hand wouldjustifo interference under Article 136- 0rder of High Court set aside-Bail cancelled-Bail-Cancellation of Respondents were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, inter alia, for committing murder of two sons of complainant-appellant and for offences of attempt to murder him and his family members. The E respondents filed appeals, and the High Court by a non-speaking order released them on bail. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to F protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused, who is set at liberty by the bail order, from tampering with the evidence in heinous crime and if there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person released G on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses threatening the family members of the deceased and also create problems of law and order situation. 1490-D-EI I:-1 484 .. ' ' ~· I . P. MISHRA v. D. MISHRA 485 1.2. In the instant case, looking into the gravity of the crime, A apprehension of tampering with the evidence and threats to the life of the complainant and other witnesses given by the accused, the High Court while granting bail by its non-speaking order, did not take into account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the accused tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The High Court B failed to see and appreciate that the respondents, who are the main accused Nos. 1 to 3, are the masterminds behind the crime committed. The High Court has not considered the material evidence available 011 record against the accused which prima facie establish the criminal liability of the respondents. It also has not taken into account the several complaints and i~formation reports before the trial and to the police authorities stating C tliat the accused have killed his two sons out of six, the three accused were arrested and remanded to jail and other accused are absconding and evading their arrest and that one of the accused who was on bail has confirmed the group of criminals and goes to the house of the appellant and gives threatening to the eye witnesses in order to pressurise them not to pursue the criminal case against them and that whenever these accused D persons visit the house of the appellant, they are always armed with their guns. (489-C-G; 490-E-F[ 1.3. In the peculiar nature of the case revealed from the allegations and the position of the accused in relation to the eye witnesses, it was E incumbent upon the High Court to give proper weight to the serious apprehension of the complainant which was urged in, resisting the application for bail. The High Court has failed to properly appreciate the entire position. Therefore, this Court will be justified under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail to the accused persons. The order passed F ,._ by the High Court in granting bail to the respondents stands set aside and cancelled. [490-E-H] Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR (1978) SC 179 and State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR (1978) SC 961, relied on. G Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1985] 1 SCC 349, referred to. Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2004[ 2 SCC 362, c~. H J ' 486 SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.