STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SITARAM POPAT VETAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 23-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SITARAM POPAT VETAL AND ANR. 
AUGUST 23, 2004 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : 
Bail-Grant of-High Court granted bail to accused on ground of 
false Implication due to political rivalry-On appeal, field : Before 
C granting bail to accused of serious offences, the Court should satisfy itself 
that on the basis of evidence, Prima facie case could not be made out 
against him-However, conclusive findings on merits/demerits not 
~ecessary-Though criminal antecedents not necessarily determinative of 
question of grant of bail to accused, yet their relevance cannot be totally 
D ignored-Facts relating to recovery of weapons/identification of accused 
in the Identification Parade/relevancy of criminal antecedents ignored by 
High Court before granting bail-Findings uf High Court based on 
surmises without any material in support thereto Grant of bail not 
justified-Hence order of High Court set aside. 
E 
Respondents allegedly attacked the deceased, who succumbed to 
the injuries. An FIR was lodged against the Respondents. They were 
arrested and charge-sheet was filed by the Police against them for 
committing offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. Respondents 
filed bail applications. High Court granted them bail on the ground 
F that they were falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. Hence 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant-State that High Court granted 
the bail without appreciating the gravity of the offences and the 
criminal antecedents of the accused; and that since grant of bail they 
G have been indulging in serious offences and not attending the Court 
regularly. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. While granting bail, Courts have to indicate in the 
H order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted 
696 
STATE v. S. P. VETAL 
697 
particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a A 
serious offence. It is necessary for the Courts dealing with application 
for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors 
also before granting bail : 
1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case B 
of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering or the witness or. 
apprehension of threat to the complainant; 
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. C 
Any order de hors of such reasons suffers from non-application 
of mind. (699-G-H; 700-A-B] 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., [2002] 3 SCC D 
598; Puran Etc. v. Rambilas & Anr. Etc. (2001] 6 SCC 338 and Kalyan 
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr., JT (2004) 
3 SC 442, referred to. 
1.2. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by E 
the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, 
yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. But 
at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and 
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be 
undertaken. (700-C-D] 
F 
1.3. The High Court has lightly brushed aside the factum of 
recovery of the weapons and identification of the accused at the test 
identification parade. It arrived at the conclusion, which was based on 
surmises without any material before it to show that a false case had 
been foisted beca.i1se of political rivalry. The antecedents of the G 
respondents though noticed, were lightly brushed aside by it on the 
ground that they were not of recent past. Even though criminal 
antecedents are always not determinative of the question whether bail 
is to be granted, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored. Since 
the grant of bail to the respondents does not appear to be in order, the H 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A order of the High Court is set aside. (700-E-F-G) 
1.4. If the accused is not appearing in Court on the date fixed, it is 
open to the trial Court to take such action as available in law. [700-F] 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
921 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2003 of the Bombay High 
Court in Crl. Application No. 411 of 2003. 
C 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant. 
Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J.: Leave Granted. 
The State of Maharashtra calls in question legality o

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