2001 (3) TMI 1053 - SC - Indian Laws

Granting anticipatory bail for lesser offence doesn't guarantee regular bail after charge escalated to Section 302; Section 437 principles apply

Prahlad Singh Bhati Versus N.C.T., Delhi And Anr.

SC set aside the Magistrate's orders and held the grant/retention of bail was irregular after the charge was altered to an offence punishable under ... Seeking cancellation of bail - ill-treatment on account of demand for dowry, leading to tragic death - offence punishable under Section 302 IPC - HELD THAT:- In the instant case while exercising the jurisdiction, apparently under Section 437 of the Code, the Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have completely ignored the basic principles governing the grant of bail. The Magistrate referred to certain facts and the provisions of law which were not, in any way, relevant for the purposes of deciding the application for bail in a case where accused was charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The mere initial grant of anticipatory bail for lesser offence, did not entitle the respondent to insist for regular bail even if he was subsequently found to be involved in the case of murder. Neither Section 437(5) nor Section 439(1) of the Code was attracted. There was no question of cancellation of bail earlier granted to the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 406 IPC. The Magistrate committed a irregularity by holding that 'I do not agree with the submission made by the Ld.Prosecutor in as much as if we go by his submissions then the accused would be liable for arrest every time the charge is altered or enhanced at any stage, which is certainly not the spirit of law'. With the change of the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. Instead of referring to the grounds which entitled the respondent accused the grant of bail, the Magistrate adopted a wrong approach to confer him the benefit of liberty on allegedly finding that no grounds were made out for cancellation of bail. While allowing this appeal and setting aside the orders impugned we permit the respondent-accused to apply for regular bail in the trial court. If any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of on its merits keeping in view the position of law and the observations made hereinabove. We would reiterate that in cases where the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life which is triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, the Magistrate may, in his wisdom, refrain to exercise the powers of granting the bail and refer the accused to approach the higher courts unless he is fully satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Issues involved: Bail granted to accused in a murder case without considering legal provisions and principles.Summary:The judgment by the Supreme Court of India pertains to a case where the respondent, accused of murdering his wife, was granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court without due consideration of legal provisions. The deceased was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment due to dowry demands, leading to her tragic death. Despite a charge-sheet being filed against the accused under Sections 302, 406, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he managed to obtain bail through anticipatory and regular bail orders, even for the serious offence of murder.The Court highlighted the provisions related to bail under the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that bail should not be granted to those accused of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment unless exceptional circumstances exist. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, and public interest. The Magistrate's jurisdiction to grant bail is limited, especially in cases exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.In this case, the Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked fundamental principles governing bail, granting it to the accused charged with a serious offence without valid grounds. The High Court's dismissal of the appellant's plea without proper adjudication of legal issues was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the previous orders, allowing the accused to apply for regular bail in the trial court, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of legal provisions and circumstances before granting bail in cases involving serious offences.The judgment underscores the importance of upholding legal principles and ensuring that bail decisions are made in accordance with the law, especially in cases of grave offences like murder.