2009 (4) TMI 1031 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Revokes Bail for Respondent in Case Involving Two Deaths, Citing Insufficient Reasoning; Custody Ordered Pending Further Bail Review.

The SC set aside the HC's order granting bail to the second respondent in a criminal case involving two deaths and multiple injuries, citing a lack of ... Bail Application - FIR was initially registered for offences u/s's 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC - subsequently, on death of two injured persons, Section 302, IPC was also added - Whether having regard to the nature of the offences the second respondent has been charged with the background in which these were committed and the stage of the trial, the High Court was justified in granting bail to the said respondent and set him free? - appellant had gone to the shop where one Basiruddin also came - Anzar’s (shopkeeper) refusal to sell goods to him on credit, Basiruddin started beating him, on which the appellant intervened - Being annoyed Basiruddin accompanied by 21 other persons, including the second respondent armed with guns and country made firearms - seeing this, appellant rushed to the house of his brother Qayyum - All the said 22 persons attacked the house of Qayyum - As per the medical reports, the injured persons sustained gunshot injuries which were grievous in nature - later on, Rizwan and Anzar Hussain died. HELD THAT:- Normally this Court does not interfere with the order of the High Court relating to grant or rejection of bail but in the instant case, having carefully gone through the impugned order, we are constrained to observe that the High Court has completely ignored the basic principles which are to be kept in view while dealing with an application filed u/s 439 of the Code for grant of bail and has thus, committed a manifest error in the matter of grant of bail to the second respondent, warranting interference by this Court. The background of the incident, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the accused and the manner in which the offences were committed, prima facie, reflect the character and the conduct of the accused for whom perhaps refusal by the shopkeeper to sell goods on credit was a challenge to their authority and the power they wielded in the area. Be that as it may, the significant feature of the case is that the learned Judge, except for recording the submissions of counsel for both the parties, has not indicated any reason whatsoever for grant of bail. This is manifest from the afore extracted order that there is no consideration of any of the factors, like nature of the offence; the evidence collected by the prosecution and forming part of the chargesheet and the circumstances under which the offences were committed, all relevant for deciding the question whether the bail should be granted or not. In our opinion, failure on the part of the learned judge in not indicating any reason for grant of bail particularly when charges against the second respondent are serious, makes his order indefensible. As observed by this Court in Puran’s case [2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is not to be undertaken but that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was granted are not to be indicated, which is the case here. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order granting bail to the second respondent is set aside. The bail bond and surety furnished by the said respondent in terms of the High Court’s order stand cancelled and it is directed that he shall be taken into custody forthwith. We may also clarify that if in future any application for grant of bail is filed by the second respondent, it shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgement by D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ., addressed an appeal against the order granting bail to the second respondent, Chhunnu @ Chhidda, in a criminal case involving a violent incident leading to two deaths and multiple injuries. The High Court had granted bail to the respondent without providing adequate reasons for doing so, which the Supreme Court found to be a manifest error. The Supreme Court emphasized that while granting bail, the court must consider the nature of the offense, supporting evidence, and circumstances of the case. The failure of the High Court to provide reasons for granting bail was deemed unacceptable. The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the bail order, and directed the respondent to be taken into custody. The Court also highlighted concerns about the prosecution's lack of progress in the case and emphasized that its observations were solely related to the bail decision and not a final judgment on the case itself. The Court concluded by stating that any future bail applications by the respondent should be considered independently of this ruling.