STATE versus JASPAL SINGH GILL

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 25-06-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
\ 
• 
\ 
" 
993 
STATE· 
• 
v. 
~ -. 
JASPAL SINGH GU:,L 
Ju~ 25, 19,$4 
.. · ,·, .,. 
• 
..-, -
I I) 
-
--
t 
.-
• v ' 
.. 
·.-
. ·-.1·-· 
. 
. 
.• ·., {E.8 •• '\'l!NKA'1'ARkM'lAH, YACATION JUDGE] · . 
J, 
. 
'. 
,, 
... 
" 
•••· 
Sptclal Powers of the High Court to enlarg~. an acrused. 011. ball under 
·stctfon 439. (J) read with section •37 (3) and482 of th~ Codi <if Criminal Pr~­
CMhlre, sCOpe of. 
. 
. 
· 
, ; .-) ~~ 
. ' 
The re&pondent along with three others wer~ accu9~d rirq11v;ji;1omfuii'.. 
ted offences punishable under ss. 3, 5 and 9 of the ()flicjiil Secre~ Act,. 1923 
-rea<I ~ithco a: 120 B of lhe Indian Penal Code and therefore committed to t,he 
Court of sessions for the said offences. which a·r_e of a· serious :~ture. Du.ring -
thC -investiga:tiOn, __ the -r~sp~~dent maq~ a.it .applicitibn .fg_t/.baLlbe~~ the 
Additional Se~sions Judge, New Delhi and it was rejec(!'d .j(i JaliuJii:y; 1984. 
Then t1gaili' he ma.de another applicatiotl for bail before,'the St!sij>~S Court. 
Before the ~aid a.pPlicatiqn could be ta.ken up he made an application under 
8, 482 of. tlte Crimfoal Procedure !Code ,before !the H)gh Court of Delhi 
roribaiJ.,. ·Tu.,:10.riied Judge of the High Court who ~eard thp bail application 
' 
,;.,..n_t into the tn\!rlts of the case and after holding that the-jllaterial. before the 
. ~/ Couft was insufficient to_sustain the conyic.iion of the respondent. pxoceeded 
to enlarge him on !:>'ail subject to his. furnishing a Personal bond in the sum 
of Rs. 5,000/- with :one surety it'l.· the ti lee arn,ollnt. However, the very same 
Learned Judge had di&missed earHiif the bail application of Jasbir Siiigh who 
was the employee of the. re•pondent~ Aggri,eved by the order of the High 
Court enlarging the respondent,on\bail, the Prosecution has filed this special 
leave petition for revoking the said order of bail; 
. 
Allowing the petition, tlie Court. 
HELD : {: J. The Court before granting ,bail in cases, Involving non-
bailable olrences particularly wher~ the trial has not yet commenced should 
A 
B 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
a 
.. 
. A' 
B 
E 
.•. . · 
·G 
H ti 
• 
SUPR!M! com T llEPOlTS 
[1984) 3 s.c.ll; 
tak:t into consi.deration-va'rious Matters auch-as the-Oatµre and seriousnesa of 
the- offence, the character of tht evidence, circumstanc~ which are pectiliar to 
~he accused, a reasonable possiQilitY Of.the Presence Of the accused not being 
1ecure~d at the- trial, rea1onable .apprehension Of witnesses being tamp~red 
with, the larger intrestsof the public or the. State and similar other considera-
tions. Further, the Court should cxercfsC'·& gfcate-r degree ot care in enlirR 
ging on bail an accused who io charged.wi,th the offence punishable under s. 3 
or the Official Secre!I Act when it relate• I\> military affairs. Here the offeace 
punishable under,, 3 .of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with whicp the respon·. 
•ent is charaed relates to military affairs an.d it is punjshable with imprison-
ment whi1:h may, extend· to foartten years. 
· · 
. 
,. ~ ,. ., 
rh1 Stat• v. CM1tain latjit Sinjh,' A.LR. 1962 S.C. 253 Gurcharan. 
Sinrh .t Orn. Stat• (D1lhl Acim•.J,{1971i 2.S.C.R. 358; Guciikantl Narsaim' 
hwlil <l Ors. " ~uhlic fffleciil~r, Hlth Co•ri of Andlva l.'radesh, (!97BJ 2 S.C.R. 
361, rcf~r•d to.![998C-D; 998A; 997H] 
• 
1 : 2 .• The decision oftbe-High Court th,•!.t1ie material collected bYtho . 
prosecution aatl lhehidenre to be adduced at the trial would not be. sufficien\ , . 
to sustain a conviction app~~rs tq be.A premature one.in the circumptances or·· 
this case. Tho allegations made by tbe prosecution which no doubt have slill 
- to be established •.t the. Wal suggest that the •eapondent pd the person• 
accused S:loopjih hi qi a"'ie persons of eBay conscience in'·so far as thC ilitei:reits 
and security Of the counm• is concerned, 'fhe current Sitpatlon in the COlldlfl' 
is such .that it can easjlj/, be eXp!Oited by UQlcrupUJOu! men to their OWD Of tO. · 
some fofeign powet'sadva.ntage. :These aspects. Of thO case do not appear to , 
have' been c0nsidered by the IftJh Court. Further.' while dismissina theJie.il 
application of Jasbir Singh on April 24, .1984 •.. the learned Judge of the ljigh; j i 
Courth.ad relied on.the decision Of \his:~urt in Captain J~Jlt Sillgh's 'ca16;. . 
hj> tias not even rereired to that di:cisiop while granting'bai) to the respon-
o'h May a, 1984:° some qt the observations (llllde by th• Hieb C11im asainit 
'the snstainabliitY of thO ca1.e of crimina

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