TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the attack on her sons, namely Yameen and Mobin and her husband, Jamshed. The Appellant herein is the person who lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 955/2018 for offences Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC'). In all eleven Accused were named in the FIR, being Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2022, namely Meherban; Respondent No. 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No. 77/2022, namely Jumma, Hakmeen, Yaseen, Arshad and Firoz, and five more persons namely, Bhoora, Shahid, Sullad, Yamin and Dev. 3. That FIR No. 955/2018 dated 27th August, 2018 is stated to have been filed by the Appellant herein at around 21:05 hrs in the night stating that at around 18:00 hrs of the same day the Accused, armed with swords and knives entered Appellant's house with a common intention to attack and kill Yameen and Mobin, sons of the Appellant and Jamshed, Appellant's husband. That on entering the house, they started hurling abuses and attacked the sons and husband of the Appellant, attempting to kill them. The neighbours of the Appellant came to their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. 9. In the meantime, the Accused-Respondents summoned by the Sessions Court preferred an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court, praying for an order to quash the order dated 21st September, 2019 whereby the Respondents had been summoned to appear before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut. By order dated 11th November, 2019, the High Court dismissed the said application and granted 30 days' time to the Accused to surrender before the Trial Court. The Accused-Respondents assailed the said order by preferring a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Crl.) No. 10947/2019, before this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 6th December 2019. 10. On 8th January, 2020, the next date on which the sessions trial was presented, the Accused-Respondents once again failed to appear notwithstanding the direction by this Court to surrender. Hence the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, by order dated 8th January, 2020, directed that proceedings for attachment of property of the Accused-Respondents be initiated Under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. The Accused-Respondents were arrested by the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n bail, cannot be ruled out. 16. Further it was urged that the High Court has not assigned reasons for the grant of bail in the instant cases. That the High Court could not have granted bail to the Accused having scant regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against them. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the High Court in a very cryptic order de hors any reasoning has granted bail to the Accused-Respondents. It was submitted on behalf of the mother of the deceased, that the instant appeals may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon certain judgments of this Court which shall be referred to later. 17. Per contra, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, learned Counsel for Accused-Respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the same do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. That the informant-Appellant has narrated an untrue version of events in order to falsely implicate the Accused. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has stated that there was a scuffle between the sons and the husband of the Appellant, and the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him Under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation Under Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, Under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement Under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court of Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (vii) The concerned/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court of Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re v. State of U.P.), shall also be complied. The order read thus: Looking to impediments in arranging suret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be considered by a court while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the Accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the Accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the Accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order. h) In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129, this Court, while considering an appeal from an order of cancellation of bail, has spelt out some of the significant considerations of which a court must be mindful, in deciding whether to grant bail. In doing so, this Court has stated that while it is not possible to prescribe an exhaustive list of considerations which are to guide a court in deciding a bail application, the primary requisite of an order granting bail, is that it should result from judicious exercise of the court's discretion. i) Recently in Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., this Court made observations with respect to the exercise of appellate power to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons as distinguished from an application for cancellation of bail. i.e. this Court distinguished between setting aside a perverse order granting bail vis-à-vis cancellation of bail on the ground that the Accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. Quoting Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, this Court observed as under: 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arised at paragraph 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under: (a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (c) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (d) Reasons 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the Accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the Accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the Accused. While we are conscious of the fact that it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the Accused may not have been crystalised as such, an order de hors any reasoning whatsoever cannot result in grant of bail. If bail is granted in a casual manner, 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 prefer an appea....