VAMAN NARAIN GHIYA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 12-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 369 
VAMAN NARAIN GHIYA 
A 
-t 
II. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
-4 
(Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 12, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
-
_I,.-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Bail -
Sought by accused - On the grounds that he was released c 
on bail in six out of ten cases; that he had been discharged 
uls 413 /PC and was facing trial only for offences triable by 
Magistrate; that he had been in jail for more than 2~ years; 
and that two similarly situated co-accused enlarged on bail -
Rejection of, by High Court - Subsequently the discharge ul D 
s 413 /PC set aside by High Court and appeal against the 
order of High Court dismissed as withdrawn - On appeal, 
held: Accused not entitled to bail. 
Bail - Meaning and purpose of- Principles to be followed 
while granting bail - Held: While considering bail application, 
E 
detailed discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation 
of merits to be avoided - An accused is not detained in 
custody on assumption of his guilt, but it is a mechanism 
whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function 
of securing the presence of the prisoner - Balance is to be 
maintained between personal liberty of the accused and the 
F 
investigationa/ right of the police and between the requirement 
of society being shielded from the hazards of misadvantures 
of accused and the fundamental cannon of criminal 
jurisprudence of innocence in favour of accused. 
Words and Phrases - 'Bail' - Meaning of in the context G 
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
-'</ 
Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote 
and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 785; State of Maharashtra v. Anand 
-
Chaintaman Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625 and State v. 
369 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Surendranath Mohanty 1990 (3) SCR 462, relied on. 
Sa/auddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. ;State of Maharashtra 
AIR 1996 SC 1042; K.L. Verma v. St~te and Anr. 1996 (7) 
·SCALE 20; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Anr. 2004 
(7) SCC 558; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2004 
B Supp. (6) SCR 707; A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 
1950 SC 1000, referred to. 
Strouds' Judicial Dictionary (Fourth Edition 1971 ), 
referred to. 
.,._ -
c 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1996 SC 1042 
Referred to 
1996 (7). SCALE 20) 
Refeired to 
2004(7) SCC 558 
Referred to 
2004 (6) Supp. SCR 707 Refe~red to 
AIR 1950 SC 1000 
Referred to 
.. AIR 1980 SC 785 
Relied on 
Para 6 
Para 7 
-Para 8 
Para 8 
Para 15 
Para 19 
AIR 1990 SC 625 
Relied on 
Para 19 
' 
1990 (3) SCR 462 
Relied on 
Para 19 
. CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDlCTl_ON : Criminal Appeal 
E 
No. 406 of 2008. 
From the Order dated 3.2.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpl.Jr in S.B. Criminal Bail 
Application No. 2759 of 2005 ... 
S.R. Bajwa, Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa, AP. Jain LP. Singh, 
F 
Aklan K Jain, Anurag Jain and N. Annapoorani for the 
Appellant. 
Aruneshwar Gupta, A.AG., Alt~f Ahmed, Naveen Kumar 
Singh Shashwat Gupta and Bharat Bhushan for the 
Respondent. 
,' 
G 
The Judgment of the Court wa$ delivered by 
.DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the order passed by a learned Sin:gle Judge of the Rajasthan 
High Court at Jodhpur, rejecting the' application for bail filed by 
H the appellant. An earlier application for bail filed by the 
...... 
-
VAMAN NARAIN GHIYAv. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
311 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
appellant was also rejected by the High Court by order dated A 
., 
15.12.2003. Allegation against the appellant was that he is 
involved in several nefarious activities of smuggling of antiques 
... 
particularly the idols to foreign countries for heavy sums of 
money. 
2. Stand·of appellant before the High Court was that he 
B 
was discharged of offence punishable under Section 413 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in shoct the 'IPC') by the trial Court 
. 
\,. 
and therefore he was facing trial only for the offence triable by 
the Court of Magistrate, i.e. under Sections 457, 380 and 411 
IPC. It was the stand of the appellant that the evidence of the c 
prosecution witnesses was not sufficient to secure his, 
conviction in respect of any of the charges. It was pointed out 
that evidence of seven witnesses have been recorded and·. 
none of them has implicated him in the crime. There is no· 
recovery from him and other co-accused persons similarly · D 
situated namely, Madam Mohan Agarwal and Manoj Sharma. 
· had been enlarged on bail. Out
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.