LexVIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 373 VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 60 I of 2017) A MARCH 28, 2017 B [DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Criminal proceedings against appellants for offence punishable u/ss.143, 147, 323, 302, 504, 114 r/w s.149 !PC - Bail application rejected C by trial court -Aggrieved, appellant filed petition before High Court which was also rejected - Thereafter second bail application flied before trial court was also rejected - Plea of accused that he was entitled to bail as in the meantime the investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed and, therefore, there was change of circumstance - Plea rejected - Petition before High Court rejected D - Special leave petition thereagainst also rejected - Third application for bail, however, allowed by trial court - Father of the victim-deceased moved High Court for cancellation of bail - Bail cancelled - On appeal, held: Trial court was swayed by the fact that when a charge sheet is filed it amounts to change of E circumstance - Filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution - Jn the instant case, trial judge did not keep himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications were rejected and the mailer had travelled to the Supreme Court - Once Supreme Court declined to enlarge the appellants on bail, endevours to project same factual score should F not have been allowed - The gravity of the crime should have been taken note of by the trial court - Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased had married daughter of accused-appellant No, I belonging to different community and was living peacefully away from the resentful community, but due to some kind of "misconceived G class honour", accused put an end to the life of the young man - Jn such a situation, the accused persons should not have been granted liberty - There was no error in the order of the High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.143, 147, 323, 302, 504, 114 rlw s.149 - Honour killing. 373 H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 J 7] 4 S.C.R. A Precedent: Binding effect of judgments/orders granting! rejecting bail - Held: A bail application is not to be entertained 011 the basis of certain observations made in a judgment in a different context - It depends upon the nature of the crime and the manner in which it is committed - There has to be application of mind and B appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on the ground that the fundamental principle of c criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. [Para 14]1380-A-B) Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011) 13 SCR 309; Siddharam D Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 sec 694 : [2010] 15 SeR 201- distinguished. 2. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a judgment in a different context. It depends upon the nature of the crime and the manner in which E it is committed. The requisite factors 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 with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the F G H court in support of the charge. [Paras 15, 16)[381-B, e-D] Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and another (2004) 7 sec 525 : [2004) 3 Suppl. SeR 584; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010) 12 SCR 1165; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vl}ay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 - relied on. 3. An order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In the instant case, the trial Judge was not guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He did not keep himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications were VlRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF 375 KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER rejected and the matter had travelled to the Supreme Court. Once A Supreme Court declined to enlarge the appellants on '>ail, endevours to project same factual score should not have been al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.