SONU versus SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 05-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
SONU
v.
SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2021)
APRIL 05, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Unnatural death
of married woman within a year of marriage – Charge-sheet against
her husband (first respondent) for offences u/ss.498-A and 304-B
IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Bail application of
first respondent rejected by Sessions Judge – Bail application u/
s.439 CrPC before High Court – High Court allowed the application
– Justification of – Held: In view of the provisions of s.304-B IPC,
as well as the presumption arising u/s.113-B of Evidence Act, the
High Court, on facts, was clearly not justified in granting bail –
Prima facie, there were serious allegations in the FIR in regard to
harassment suffered by deceased in close proximity to her death
over demands for dowry by the accused – Submission in support of
bail as recorded by High Court was that deceased was undergoing
treatment for a mental illness – Medical prescription, submitted
before the Court, however, prima facie indicates that there was no
serious ailment – Also, the order of High Court did not contain the
kind of reasoning expected of a judicial order – The High Court
merely recorded the rival submissions, and, without any evaluation
of the same, proceeded to grant bail without due application of
mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions
of the law – Grant of bail to first respondent accordingly stand set
aside – Bail – IPC – ss.498-A and 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 – ss.3 and 4.
Bail – Evaluation of rival submissions – Requirement of –
Held: The rival submissions have to be evaluated and not merely
recorded by the court – While it is true that at the time of considering
an application for bail, the High Court would not be required to
launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which have to be
determined in the course of trial, equally an application of mind by
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 78
78
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439.
Bail – Reasoned bail orders – Necessity of – Held: An order
without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide
the judicial process – While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality
of the reasons which matters the most – That there has been a
judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an
application u/s.439 CrPC must emerge from the quality of the
reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail – Reasons
in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process
which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice –
Judgment / Order – Reasoned order – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s. 439 – Administration of Justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The submission in support of bail recorded by
the High Court was that the sister of the appellant was undergoing
treatment for a mental illness. The medical prescription,
submitted before the Court, however, would prima facie indicate
that there was no serious ailment. Prima facie, there are serious
allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by
the deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for
dowry by the accused. In view of the provisions of Section 304-B
of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the presumption which arises
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the High Court was
clearly not justified in granting bail. [Para 9][83-G, H; 84-A-B]
2.1. The order of the High Court granting bail contains
absolutely no reasons at all. While it is true that at the time of
considering an application for bail the High Court would not be
required to launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which
have to be determined in the course of trial, equally an application
of mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary.
In the present case, the High Court has merely recorded the
submissions and proceeded to grant bail without any evaluation
of the rival submissions. [Para 10][84-B-D]
2.2.The lone sentence in the order of the High Court,
intending to display some semblance of reasoning for justifying
SONU v. SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
the grant of bail, contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) “the entire
facts and circumstances of the case”; (ii) “submissions of learned
Couns

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