TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 407/2019 on 8th December, 2019 for the offence of murder of his father, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (sic 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for the sake of brevity) against the second Respondent-Accused herein viz. Ram Narayan Jat. 3. The said FIR dated 8th December, 2019 had been lodged by the Appellant herein between 23:00 hrs and 23:30 hrs in the night stating that earlier on that day, at about 16:00 hrs, his father, aged about 55 years, was attacked by the Respondent-Accused, at the Lalpura Pachar bus stand, with the intention of killing him. That the Respondent-Accused pinned the deceased to the ground, sat on his chest and forcefully strangled him, thereby causing his death. Some associates of the Respondent-Accused who were present at the spot of the incident, helped him in attacking and killing the deceased. The informant-Appellant further stated in the FIR that there was a pre-existing rivalry between the Respondent-Accused, his brothers namely, Arjun, Satyanarayn and Okramal and the deceased. That the deceased had previously informed the Appellant and certain family members about such rivalry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....waspachar village, Jhotwara Tehsil, Jaipur, Rajasthan. That he was elected to such post despite opposition from the Accused and his family. That the family of the Accused exercised significant influence in the village and were trying to dissuade the deceased from contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch, to be held in February 2020. Owing to such political enmity, the Respondent-Accused along with his brothers Arjun, Satyanarayn and Okramal had gone to the Appellant's house in the morning on 8th December, 2019 and abused the deceased and later on the same day, the deceased was killed. According to the Appellant, the deceased was suffering from 54% permanent physical impairment of both his legs and had therefore been overpowered by the Respondent-Accused who had pinned him to the ground, sat on his chest and throttled his neck, resulting in his death. 9. Further it was urged that the High Court has not exercised its discretion judiciously in granting bail to the Respondent-Accused. That the High Court has not taken into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged and the grave manner in which the offence was committed against a person incapable of defending himsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is evidenced by the findings in the charge sheet dated 7th February 2020, which records that the deceased and the Respondent-Accused belonged to the same village and they used to play cards together at the Lalpura bus stand every day since their retirement and there is no evidence which is suggestive of enmity between them. That the sudden scuffle between the deceased and the Accused on 8th December, 2019 was an isolated incident and was not in connection with or in continuation of any pre-existing dispute between them. It was further submitted that there was a considerable and unexplained delay by the informant-Appellant in lodging the FIR which is proof of the fact that the same was lodged as an afterthought and therefore does not bring out the true narration of facts. In support of his submission as to the false nature of the Appellant's version of the incident, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Accused has relied on the statements of the eye-witnesses to the incident stating that there was a sudden scuffle between the deceased and the Respondent-Accused on the date of the incident and the Accused throttled the neck of the deceased. After being separated, the deceased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the conditions laid down Under Section 437(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of this Court in the matter of granting bail to an Accused as under: a) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that have to be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise pol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the Accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail--more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. d) In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. e) In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 this Court observe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the Accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of Accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner. x x x 18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the Accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. The consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the Accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well. These are not matters involving the private rights of two individual parties, as in a civil proceeding. The proper enforcement of criminal law is a matter of public interest. We must, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which a succession of orders in the present batch of cases has recorded that counsel for the "respective parties do not press for further reasoned order". If this is a euphemism for no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt granting bail. The facts of the said case are that a complaint was lodged against fifteen persons for offences Under Sections 148, 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Accused therein moved an application seeking bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, who, after perusal of the case diary, statements of witnesses and other connected records, released the Accused on bail through an order which did not elaborately discuss the material on record. The High Court cancelled the bail bond on the ground that the Principal Sessions Judge had not discussed the material on record in the order granting bail. In an appeal preferred by the Accused before this Court, the order granting bail was restored and the following observations were made as to the duty of the court to record reasons and discuss the material on record before granting bail: 10. Having perused the law laid down by this Court on the scope of the power to be exercised in the matter of cancellation of bails, it is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to grant bail was arrived at after perusal of the entire material on record. While the material may not have been specifically referred to, the order granting bail was indicative of the fact that it had been arrived at after thorough consideration thereof. However, in the instant case, no such indication can be observed in the impugned orders of the High Court which would be suggestive of the fact that the material on record was perused before deciding to grant bail. Secondly, the case referred to by the Accused concerned an offence which was allegedly committed by fifteen persons. The complainant therein had not specifically assigned roles to each of such fifteen persons. It was thus found that the allegations being vague, no prima facie case could be made out, justifying the grant of bail to the Accused therein. However, in the instant case, only one Accused has been named by the Appellant-informant and the role attributed to him is specific. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon, being significantly different from the one before us, we find that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Accused would be of no assistance to his case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (e) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to Rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (f) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (g) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (h) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cedents of the Accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the Accused. 18. Ultimately, the Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the Accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other. 19. Thus, while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. As noted in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1978 CriLJ 129, when bail has been granted to an Accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, if no new circumstances have cropped up since the grant of bail, the State may....