LexSTATE OF BIHAR versus RAJBALLAV PRASAD@ RAJBALLAV PP. YADAV@ RAJBALLABH YADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2016] 9 S.C.R. 652 STATE OF BIHAR v. RAJBALLAV PRASAD@ RAJBALLAV Pp. YADAV@ RAJBALLABH YADAV (Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of2016) NOVEMBER 24, 2016 [A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Bail -- Grant of - Challenge to - Respondent-accused was facing trial, wherein he was charged for committing offences under !PC, POCSO Act and the Immoral Traffic Act - During investigation, respondent had allegedly absconded and there were complaints against him of intimidating witnesses -Thereafter, respondent surrendered and filed bail application - Trial Court dismissed it - High Court, however, granted bail - On appeal, held: The paramount D consideration is, whether there are any chances of the accused person fleeing from justice or reasonable apprehension that the accused person would tamper with evidence/trial if released on bail - These aspects were not dealt with by the High Court appropriately with the seriousness it deserved - This constitutes a E sufficient reason for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the High Court - Order of High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 420134, 366-A, 370, 370-A, 212, 120-B - Protection oj Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-ss.4, 6, 8, 29-Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 - ss.4, 5, 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.82, 83. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The respondent-accused is only an under-trial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trail of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal G approach while considering bail applications of accused persons. 1-1 However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused if released on bail, this public interest of fair trial would outweigh the personal interest of the accused while undertaking the task of balancing the liberty 652 STATE OF BIHAR v. RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PD. YADAV @ RAJBALLABH YADAV of the accused on the one hand and interest of the society to have a fair trial on the other hand. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. It is this need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. After all, if there is a ~hrcat to fair trial because of intimidation of witnesses etc., that would happen because of wrongdoing of the accused himself, and the consequences thereof, he has to suffer. [Para 24)(667-E-H; 668- A-B] 2. In the present case, the appellant is not seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent misconducted himself after the grant of bail or new facts have emerged which warrant cancellation of bail. That won Id be a case where conduct or events based grant of bail are to be examined and considered. On the other hand, when order of grant of bail is challenged on the ground that grant of bail itself is given contrary to principles of law, while undertaking the judicial review of such an order, it needs to be examined as to whether there was arbitrary or wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Court granting bail. If that be so, this Court has power to correct the same. It is a matter of record that when FIR was registered against the respondent and on the basis of investigation he was sought to be arrested, the respondent had avoided the said arrest. So much so, the prosecution was compelled to file an application under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court and the trial court even initiated the process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. At that stage only the respondent surrendered before the trial court and was arrested. It has also come on record that the prosecutrix and her family members made representations claiming that the respondent is threatening the family members of the prosecutrix. So much so, having regard to several complaints of intimidation of witnesses made on behalf of the prosecutl"ix and her family members, the State administration has deputed a force of 1+4 for the safety and security of the prosccutrix and her family. Also 653 A B c D E F G H 654 SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.