RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY versus SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 18-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 17 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM GOVIND UPADHY A Y 
" 
v. 
SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 1 ~. 2002 
B 
[UMESH C. BANEFJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 436 and 439-Bail-
)--
Rejection just a month ago-Another FIR registered against accused persons 
for threating witnesses and charge-sheet filed-Subsequently, High Court 
,-
c granting bail-Held, High Court ought to have taken note of facts on record 
including the second FIR and charge-sheet thereon-No specific reason given 
for grant of bail especially when bail was rejected just a month ago-Hence 
High Court was in error. 
D 
Appellant's brother was a candidate contesting election for the post of 
Pradhan. While the polling was in progress informant was prohibited from 
casting his vote. Appellant's brother interfered and the torture fell on to him 
/..;.. 
which resulted in his death. FIR was lodged and accused persons were 
arrested. Accused person then filed bail application. Both the trial court and · 
E 
High Court dismissed the application. Subsequent bail applications filed before 
the Sessions Judge were also rejected. Against this order accused persons filed 
I 
application for bail before High Court. Subsequently another FIR was 
registered and charge-sheet was filed. Bail applications was allowed and 
against this order, an application for cancellation of bail was filed, which was 
rejected. Hence the present appeal. 
>--
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
,
HELD: 1. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order-but, 
however, ~alls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not 
as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be 
\ 
G sustained. However, grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of 
-,; 
the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts however do always vary 
from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may 
be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of 
grant of bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other 
circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one 
H 
526 
-
'• 
~. 
RAM GO VIND UP AD HY A Y v, SUDARSHAN SINGH 
527 
of the basic considerations fot the grant of bail-more heinous is a crime, A 
greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on 
the factual matrix of the matter. (529-E-F] 
2. While it is true that availability of over-whelming circumstances is 
necessary for an order of cancellation of a bail, the basic criterion, however, 
being interference or even an attempt to interfere with the due course of B 
administration of justice and/or any abuse of the indulgence/privilege granted ' 
to the accused. (531-E] 
3. Considerations applicable to the grant of bail and considerations for 
cancellation of such an order of bail are independent and do not overlap each C 
other, but in the event of non-consideration of considerations relevant for the 
purpose of grant of bail and in the event an earlier order of rejection available 
on the records, it is a duty incumbent on the High Court to explicitly state 
the reasons as to why the sudden departure in the order of grant as against 
the rejection just about a month ago. The subsequent Fm is on record under 
Sections 323 and 504 lPC in which the charge-sheet have already been issued- D 
the Court ought to take note of the facts on record rather than ignoring it. In 
any event, the discretion to be used shall always have to be strictly in 
accordance with law and not dehors the same. The High Court thought it lit 
not to record any reason far less any cogent reason as to why there should be 
a departure when in fact such a petition was dismissed earlier not very long E 
ago. The consideration of the period of one year spent in jail cannot be a 
relevant consideration in the matter of grant of bail more so by reason of the 
fact that the offence charged is that of murder under Section 302 lPC having 
the punishment of death or life imprisonment-it is a heinous crime against 
the society and as such the Court ought to be rather circumspect and cautious 
in its apl?roach in a matter which stands out to be a social crime of very serious F 
nature. 1531-G-H; 532-A-B-CJ 
4. The High Court has committed a manifest error in the matter of grant 
of bail whe1o public tranquility has been stated to be distur-Oed on the election 
day and when there is an obstruction for the exercise of a rig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.