STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. versus DHANENDRA SHRIRAM BHURLE ETC.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 11-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

__. 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 143 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. 
A 
v. 
w( 
DHANENDRA SHRIRAM BHURLE ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 269-270 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Bail -
Grant of - Factors to be considered - Explained - On facts, c 
accused charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 
Arms Act and Penal Code - Grant of bail by High Court 
holding that accusations as regard charged offences not 
made out - Justification of - Held: Not justified:.... High Court 
., 
did not keep in view the relevant parameters while granting 
D 
bail - Thus, order of High Court set aside - Unlawful Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1967 - ss 10, 13, 18 & 20 - Arms Act, 1959 
.:... ss. 3 & 4 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 353 rlw ss. 34 & 120 B. 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
E 
appeals was whether the High Court was justified in 
granting bail to the accused facing trial for the 
commission of offences punishable ulss. 10, 13, 18 and 
.J 
29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; ss. 3 
and 4 of the Arms Act 1959; ands. 353 r/w ss. 34 and 120 
F 
~. 
B IPC by an abrupt conclusion that no offence was made 
out as regard the charged offences. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Whlle dealing with an application for bail, 
G 
• 
there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima 
J 
facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly 
where an accused was charged of having committed a 
serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing 
143 
H 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A with application for bail to consider among other 
circumstances, the following factors also befo1re granting 
bail: The nature of accusations and the severity of 
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of 
supporting evidence; reasonable apprehension of 
B tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the 
complainant; and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in 
support of the charge. Any order de hors such reasons 
suffers from non-application of mind. [Para 8 aind 9] [147-
8-F] 
c 
1.2. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the 
aforesaid points is not expected of the Court considering 
the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from 
discussing merits or demerits. At the stage 1Df granting 
bail a detailed examination of evidence andl elaborate 
D documentation of the merits of the case has not to be 
undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting 
bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail 
was being granted is not required to be indicated. [Para 
10] [147-G-H; 148-A] 
E 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. 
(2002) 3 SCC 598, Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. Etc. 
(2001) 6 SCC 338 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh 
Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT 2004 (3) SC 442, relied 
F on. 
Lokesh Singh v. State of UP. and Anr. SL.P(Crl.) No. 
2861 of 2007 disposed of by Supreme Court c1n 21.11.08, 
referred to. 
,,,.... 
G 
2. High Court found that on reading of the charge 
sheet, nothing is disclosed as to what are the imputations 
• 
of acts done by these applicants under ss 10, 13, 18 and 
\I 
20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and 
other offences. None of the ingredients of those Sections 
H are described as committed by these persons. All that is 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. v. DHANENDRA 
145 
SHRIRAM BHURLE ETC. 
asserted is that except that these accused had a meeting 
A 
with accused Nos.1 and 2 and an inference that they are 
associated with the accused Nos.1 and 2. There are no 
other imputations. By order dated 19.9.2008 a Bench of 
this court has directed stay of the impugned order. It is 
stated that the accused persons were sent to custody in 
B 
view of the order and are presently in custody. Since the 
High Court did not keep the relevant parameters in view, 
while granting bail, the impugned order is set aside. [Para 
6, 7 and 15] [146-G; 147-A; 150-C] 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
Para 9 
(2002) 3 sec 598 
c2001) 6 sec 338 
JT 2004 (3) SC 442 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Paras 9, 13 
Paras 9, 11 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 269-270 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal 
E 
Application No. 1502 of 2008 and 1612 of 2008. 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant. 
Manish Pita le & Chaner Shekha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.