LexSUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH versus DHEEMANT SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 724 # t- A SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. DHEEMANT SINGH & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009) B APRIL 20, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Bail - Requirement of recording reasons while directing c grant of bail - Unnatural death of wife within 7 years of marriage - Criminal proceedings against husband - He sought bail - High Court granted bail by a non-reasoned order - Challenge to - Held: There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was D being granted particularly where the accused was charged of . ' having committed a serious offence - Any order de hors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration and disposal by a reasoned order - Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 - E Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138. Respondent no.1 's wife died within 7 years of marriage. The death was unnatural. Criminal proceedings ~ were initiated against respondent no.1 whereupon he .. F sought bail from the High Court. The High Court observed that the provisions of s.1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable and that it was not a case punishable under s.3048 IPC and granted bail to respondent no.1 by a practically non-reasoned order. Hence the present appeal. G I._ ~ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Even a cursory perusal of the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind. H 724 SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. DHEEMANT 725 SINGH &ANR. 1 Though detailed examination of the evidence and A elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case 8 is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious ~· manner and not as a matter of course. [Para 4] [727-8-D] 1.2. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons c for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having COIT!mitted a serious offence. It is necessary for the c9urts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting D . ~ bail, they are: I) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors such reasons E suffers from non-application of mind. [Paras 5 and 6] [727-D-H; 728-A] ~ .. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002)3 SCC 598; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. F (2001) 6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT 2004 (3) SC 442 and Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohd. 2005 (7) SCC 326, relied on. 2. The High Court's order is a bundle of confusion. G ..... ,. On one hand it noted that there was no dispute that the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage and that it was unnatural death. Having said so, it is not understood as to how the High Court observed that the provisions of s.1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable and this is not a case punishable under H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A s.304~ IPC. Th.at being so the impugned order of the High court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration and disposal by a reasoned order. [Para 8] [728-B-E] 8 Case Law Reference : (2002) 3 sec 598 relied on · Para 6 (2001) s sec 338 relied on Para 6 JT 2004 (3) SC 442 relied on Para 6 c 2005 (7) sec 326 relied on Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009. · D From the Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application .... No. 15520 of 2007. Swaraj Kaushal, Dr. Monika Gusain and Hariom E Yaduvanshi for the Appellant. U.U. Lalit, Reetesh Singh, Jhanvi Wona and Surya Kant for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ... ..- F DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the the order passed by a learned Singl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.