THE STATE OF KERALA versus MAHESH

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 19-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF KERALA
v.
MAHESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2021)
MARCH 19, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Appeal against
grant of bail – Accused-respondent was accused of a heinous and
shocking murder of a lady doctor aged about 30 years – Incident
alleged to have taken place in the presence of victim’s father – His
bail application was dismissed by Sessions Court – Bail application
moved before High Court was, however, allowed within 10/12 days
of dismissal of bail application by Sessions Court – State filed appeal
against the grant of bail – Held: In the impugned order, High Court
did not advert to any error in the reasoning of Sessions Court –
Nor was there any discussion of the reason why High Court took a
view different from that taken by Sessions Court and whether there
were any supervening circumstances within 10/12 days of the order
of the Sessions Court, which necessitated a different view – High
Court clearly erred in not appreciating the apprehension of
prosecution that the respondent would influence witnesses, could
not be put to rest by directing respondent not to enter the jurisdiction
of Ollur Police Station – High Court completely ignored the fact
that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam – Her parents
and her five years old daughter resided at Ernakulam – Most of the
prosecution witnesses were from Thrissur – There was no reason to
suppose that the witnesses would restrict their movements to the
limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station – High Court also
completely mis-appreciated the object, scope and ambit of the
directions issued by this Court from time to time in In Re : Contagion
of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons – The orders of this Court were not to
be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release
of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even
before investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed –
Respondent was charged with murder in the presence of an eye
witness, and impugned order granting bail was filed even before
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 964
964
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
the chargesheet was filed – Moreover, Respondent-Accused had
been absconding after the incident – Order of High Court granting
bail is liable to be set aside.
Bail: Appeal against grant of bail and cancellation of bail –
The exercise of appellate jurisdiction to adjudge correctness of a
bail order are not restricted by the principles for cancellation of
bail.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that though the power to grant
bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is discretionary, such
discretion has to be exercised judiciously. There is no straight
jacket formula for grant or refusal of bail. Seriousness of the charge
is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while
considering bail applications. All the relevant factors have to be
weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including
the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima
facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence
alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the
offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding
or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice,
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or
influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to
the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives,
friends or other witnesses. [Paras 16, 22][973-A; 977-E-H]
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
(2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC
496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118; Sanjay Chandra v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011]
13 SCR 309; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010]
15 SCR 201 – relied on.
2. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order
granting or refusing bail in exercise of its power under Article
THE STATE OF KERALA v. MAHESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
136 of the Constitution. However, the practice of not interfering
with orders granting and/or refusing bail is not unexceptionable.
An order granting or refusing bail without application of mind
and in disregard of relevant factors, cannot be allowed to

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