PREM GIRI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 487 
PREM GIRI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of2017) 
B 
DECEMBER 14, 2017 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
C 
s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Rejection of: by High Court - On 
appeal, held: High Court failed to assign any reason for rejecting 
the bail - Thus, did not apply its judicial mind and passed the order 
in a causal and cavalier manner - Matter remitted to High Court to 
decide the application afresh in accordance with law - Bail. 
D 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court failed to assign any reason for 
rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The general 
observations that "Looking to the overall facts and circumstances 
of the case, it is not considered proper to grant bail to the 
Petitioner" can never be the reasoning much less judicial 
reasoning required for rejection of the bail petition whether it is 
filed under Section 438 or Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The High Court 
did not apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order in 
a very casual and cavalier manner. It will be just and proper to 
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application 
afresh on its merits and in accordance with law. [Paras 7, 8, 9 and 
12) [489-C-E; 490-G] 
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar I'. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu 
Yadav & Am: (2004) 7 SCC 528 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2004) 1 sec 528 
relied on 
. Para 9 
487 
E 
F 
G 
H 
488 
·SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
B 
No.2188 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B Crimil)al Miscellaneous 
Bail No.947112017. 
Puneet Jain, Ms.Christi Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Priya!Jain, Abhinav 
Gupta, Ms.Pratibha Jain, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
C 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 
22. l 1.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at 
Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.9471 of2017 whereby the Single 
Judge of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed under Section 
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as 
D 
"the Code") by the appellant herein. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, 
need mention infra to appreciate the short issue involved in the case. 
4. The appellant apprehending his arrest in .connection with 
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 
308, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to 
as "the IPC") pursuant to FIR No. 332/2017 registered at Police Station 
Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under 
Section 438 of the Code before the High Court ofRiuasthan. The Single 
Judge of the High Court dismissed the application by impugned order, 
which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in 
this Court by the applicant. 
5. The impugned order reads as under: 
"This bail application has been filed under Section 438 
CrPC in connection with FIR No.332/2017 registered at 
Police Station Jaitaran, Dist. Pali for the offences under 
Sections 143, 341, 323, 308, 332 & 353 IPC. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public 
Prosecutor appearing for the State as also .learned counsel 
for the complainant and carefully perused the relevant 
material made available on record. 
PREM GIRi v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
489 
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, A 
but without expressing any opinion on the merits and 
demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to 
enlarge the petitioner(s) on bail. 
Therefore, this bail application is rejected." 
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused 
the record of the case. In our view, keeping in view the order, which we 
are passing, it is not necessary to issue notice to the State much less to 
hear the State in this appeal. 
7. Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to 
show that the Single Judge failed to assign any reason for rejecting the 
bail application of the appellant. 
8. The general observations that "Looking to the overall facts and 
circumstances of the case, it is not considered proper to grant bail to the 

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