SUMAN PANDEY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 14-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KUMAR! SUMAN PANDEY 
A 
v. 
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 14, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; ss. 164, 438 and 439: 
Murder-Grant of bail-Requirements of-Held: Exhaustive exploration C 
of merits of the case not necessary yet the Court should be satisfied as to 
whether there is a prima facie case made out to exercise its discretion of 
granting bail in a judicious manner-Reasons for granting bail need to be 
indicated in the order, order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-
application of mind-Reasoning as indicated by High Court while granting 
bail totally fallacious-Evidence of the eye witness was of vital importance- D 
Her evidence could not be recorded as she was pursuing her studies abroad 
and would have been available for recording her evidence during summer 
vacation only, which has been lost sight of by the High Court-Under the 
circumstances, order of the High Court granting bail to accused not 
sustainable. 
E 
Appellant's brother, the deceased, was pursuing his studies in a Medical 
College. Respondent No.2 allegedly committed his murder. In the First 
Information Report lodged by the appellant, respondent No.2 was indicated as 
sole accused and one 'P' was stated to be one of the eye witnesses. Her 
statement was recorded in terms ofs.164 of the Code of Criminal procedure, F 
1973. Police filed charge-sheet and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. 
In the meantime, accused filed a bail application, which was rejected by the 
High Court. Second bail application also rejected by the High Court 
reiterating its earlier view that the application for bail can be considered after 
the evidence of the eye witness 'P' who was studying abroad is r~corded or if G 
she failed to appear for the purpose of recording her evidence. A certificate 
was issued by the Ministry of Health, Ukrain that the summer vacation of the 
said 'P', the eye witness was between 3.7.2006 and 31.8.2006. This certificate 
was filed before the trial court. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed the 
third bail application in which High Court has granted the bail. Hence the 
577 
H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A present appeal. 
B 
Appellant contended that the grant of bail was unwarranted and in any 
event respondent No.2 has misused the liberty of bail; and that although 
notices on respondent No.I-State and respondent No.2-accused had been served 
but none has appeared to represent them when the matter was taken up. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:I.l. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows 
complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence 
and elaborate ~ocumentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the 
C 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 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 IO [582-D) 
D 
'E 
F 
G 
Omar Usm~n Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176 and VD. 
Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and A nr., (2005) 7 SCALE 68, relied on. 
1.2. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima 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 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 of 
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension 
of threat to the complainant; 
3. Primafacie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 
I 
Any order d~hors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. 
[Paras 11 and 12] (582-E, F, G) 
Ram Govind Vpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors., [2002) 3 SCC 598, 
Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc., [2001 [ 6 SCC 338, Kalyan Chandra 
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT (2004) 3 SC 4.42. 
H Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC 540, Kamaljit Singh v. 
-·l 
--
"1' 
l ' 
' 
·-
KUMAR! SUMAN PANDEY v. STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH [PASA Y AT, J.] 579 
State of Punjab and Anr.,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.