TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the deceased has preferred the present appeal. 2. The incident in question took place on the morning of 26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. when respondent no.2 herein along with his wife, Daxaben(deceased) left their home in Deesa to visit Hanumanji Temple at Gelavillage and on their way at around 07:00 a.m. while they were walking, the deceased was hit by a speeding four-wheeler (while coloured Swift Desire) from behind and which immediately fled away. That one Sevantibhai Ranchhodji Tank, cousin of respondent no.2 lodged the FIR against unknown persons initially for the offences punishable under Sections 304A IPC and Sections 177, 184 & 134 of the Motor VehiclesAct on the basis of the story narrated by respondent no.2 that his wife was accidentally hit by a speeding car when they were walking together. 2.1 That during the course of the investigation and considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation and making analysis of the call details between respondentno.2 and his friend Kirtikumar Kanaji, it was revealed that respondentno.2 hatched a criminal conspiracy along with the other co-accused to kill his wife by giving Rs. 2 lakhs to the dri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing respondent no.2 on bail. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted that while releasing respondent no. 2 on bail, the High Court has not adverted to any of the material collected during the course of the investigation which are the part of the chargesheet and that the nature and gravity of the offence. 3.2 It is submitted that the High Court, as such, has not assigned any reasons except that it is a case of circumstantial evidence which can be said to be a weak piece of evidence. 3.3 It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing respondent no. 2 on bail is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai HirabhaiMakwana (Koli) and others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 630, as well as the recent decision of this Court in the case of Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021) and decision of this Court in the case of Mahipal v. RajeshKumar, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118. 3.4 It is submitted that in the present case during the course of the inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e releasing respondent no.2 on bail. Even the High Court has not at all adverted to the material collected during the course of the investigation. The High Court has not at all considered the material/evidence collected during the course of the investigation even prima facie and has directed to release respondent no.2 in such a serious offence of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife, by simply observing that as it is a case of circumstantial evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence, it is not legal and proper to deny bail to respondentno.2. Merely because the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the course of the investigation the evidence/material has been collected and prima facie the complete chain of events is established. As observed hereinabove, while releasing respondent no.2 on bail, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not at all adverted to and/or considered any of the material/evidence collected during the course of the investigation, which is a part of the charge-sheet. 7. One another reason given by the High Court to release respondentno.2 on bail is that the accused has deep root....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile 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 charge." c) This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh - (2002)3 SCC 598, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasized that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail, has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail cannot be granted as a matter of course, bere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." f) In Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. - (2016) 15 SCC 422, after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court on the considerations to be placed at balance while deciding to grant bail, it is observed in paragraphs 15 and 18 as under: "15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless 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 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and record brief reasons for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. It is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph 36 as under: "36. Grant of bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution-is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice." 9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, the impugned order passed by the High Court directing to release respondent no.2 herein on bail is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts. Whatever reasons are given by the High Court are not germane. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has not at all adverted to th....