LexRANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 11 S.C.R. 273 RANJIT SINGH I v. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS (Criminal. Appeal No. 1545 of 2013) ~~~;, ... ·. ; .,;; ~SEPTEfyl_BE~.;.27, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND .dlPAK MISRA, JJ.] · •· Bail - Grant of - Enlargement. of qOcused-appellant on bail by the Sessions Judge on the strength of an earlier order A of the High Court - Justification - Held: On facts, not justified C - The Sessions Judge had erroneous perception and fallacious understanding of the earlier High Court order and absolutely misconstrued it - There was no deliberation with .. regard to the requirements u/s.439 CrPC in the order passed ~by the Sess(ons Judge - Relevant aspects while dealing with D · an application for bail were not kept in view by the Sessions Judge - Grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the court, yet said exercise has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course - If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant E materials, it can be annulled by the superior court - However, vide the impugned order, the High Court took note of certain supervening circumstances to cancel the bail, which exercise in the obtaining factual matrix was not necessary - Since the High Court cancelled the bail by taking certain other aspects F into consideration, appellant permitted to move application for regular bail - On such application being moved, the same shall be considered on its own merits - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439. In a criminal case involving the death of a person, FIR G was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 307, 302134, 147, 148, 149, · 1208 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Apprehending arrest, the appellant filed application under 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R. A Section 438 CrPC before the S.essions Judge, who rejected the same. The appellant then preferred a second application for grant of anticipatory bail, this time before the High Court. Vide order dated 1-2-2013 in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013, a Single Judge of the High Court disposed B of the application with a direction to the appellant to surrender before the Competent Court and to apply for regular bail. The appellant thereafter moved application under Section 439 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 6-2-2013 admitted the appellant to bail. c However, entertaining an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the order dated 1-2-2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013 and on that basis cancelled the order granting bail . in favour of the appellant. The appellant preferred SLP D before the Supreme Court which set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court but granted liberty to the complainant to proceed against the order of the Sessions court, granting bail, if so advised. E Thereafter the complainant and wife of the deceased filed application under Section 439(2) CrPC before the High Court for cancellation of the bail order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge. By the impugned order dated 16-8-2013 in M.Cr.C. F No. 3370 of 2013, a Single Judge of the High Court held that the Sessions Judge misread the order dated 1-2-2013 in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013, ignored relevant material and did not consider the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Referring to the G criminal antecedents of the appellant and, further that there was prima facie material that after release on bail, he gave threatening to the widow of the deceased and her children and obstructed the course of justice, the Single Judge of the High Court cancelled the bail granted H by the Sessions Judge and directed the appellant to RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 275 surrender before the Sessions Judge. Hence the present A appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, it is manifest that there was no deliberation with regard to the requirements 8 under Section 439 CrPC in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The order read in entirety clearly reflects that the Sessions Judge had an erroneous perception and fallacious understanding of the order passed by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013 and had absolutely C miscon$trued the order. Thus, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is totally unjustified and illegal. [Para 19] [286-C-E] 2. If the order granting ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.