LexPRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR versus ASHIS CHATTERJEE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 12 S.C.R. 1165 PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR V. ASHIS CHATTERJEE & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2010) OCTOBER 29, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B s.439 - Bail - Factors to be taken into account while c considering an application for bail - Explained - HELD: In the instant case, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles - In the circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail u/s 439 should have been granted to the accused more so when even charges were not framed - Order of High 0 Court set aside. Respondent no. 1 was accused of committing murder of an old widow by strangulation. His bail applications were rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as also the Court of Session. E However, the High Court granted him regular bail u/s 439 CrPC. Aggrieved, the brother of the deceased filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. ·it is trite that the Supreme Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in G compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to 1165 H 1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 12 S.C.R. A be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (1) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) B danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vt) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vit) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, c of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. [para 11 and 12] [1169-G- D H; 1170-A-E] State of UP. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 = 2005 (8) SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. 2001 (2) SCR 684 = 2001 (4) SCC 280; Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & E Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 526 = 2002 (3) SCC 598; and Masroor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2009 (14) SCC 286 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, while dealing with the F application of the accused for grant of bail, the High Court completely lost sight of the basic principles. The accused is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old and helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim's house by a neighbour around G the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder. Under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail u/s 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed. It is also pertinent to note that the H PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR v. ASHIS 1167 CHATTERJEE & ANR. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected three A bail applications of the accused, but the High Court did not find it worthwhile to even make a reference to these orders. [para 13] [1171-A-D] Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu B Yadav & Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 528 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2009 (14) sec 286 relied on para 9 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 relied on para 11 2001 (2) SCR 684 relied on para 11 2002 (2) SCR 526 relied on para 11 2004 (7) sec 528 relied on para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.01.201 O of the High c D Court at Calcutta in CRM N. 272 of 2010. E Nagender Rai, C.K. Rai, Babita Sant, Harish Pandey for the Appellant. Ujjwal Banerjee, Asit Kumar Rari, Namita Roy, Sarla Chandra, Satish Vig for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against order G dated 11th January, 2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.