As per case facts, a money lender was fatally shot, and while the initial report did not name respondent no. 2, his involvement was later disclosed. The Sessions Judge denied ...
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 896 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Chaman Lal
RESPONDENT:
State of U.P. & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/08/2004
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(CRL)No. 4016/2003)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Grant of bail to respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as
'accused') has been challenged in this appeal.
Background facts as projected by the appellant essentially are as
follows:-
One Prem Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was
engaged in the business of money lending. He had advanced a loan of
Rs.2 lakhs to one of the accused persons named Naeem. On 11.3.2003,
the deceased was called to the factory of one Kamil, where the accused
Naeem was working as a contractor, by telephone call which was
purportedly made by the accused Naeem. When the deceased went to that
place, he was shot at by respondent no. 2, accused - Meer Hasan and one
other accused named Wasim. Accused- respondent no.2 shot the fatal
shot. On the basis of statements made by three persons namely Nawab,
Tulshi Ram and Harish Kakkar the respondent No. 2 was taken to custody.
The first information report was lodged by a person who was not an eye
witness. In the first information report, it was indicated that
unknown assailants killed the deceased. After arrest the accused Meer
Hasan filed application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge,
Saharanpur, which was rejected. On being moved by the accused Meer
Hasan- respondent No. 2, by the impugned judgment, a learned Single
Judge has granted bail to him.
According to the appellant, without even discussing the facts
which weighed with learned Sessions Judge, the High Court by a cryptic
order has granted bail. The only stand taken by the accused, during
hearing of the bail application was that he was not named in the FIR
and subsequently his name has been disclosed in the statements,
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in
short the 'Code') after three days. The accused was charged for
commission of offence punishable under Sections
302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). It is
submitted that the grant of bail will obstruct the course of justice
and this is not a case where grant of bail was justified.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
In response learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 \026 accused
submitted that bail has been granted taking into consideration relevant
aspects and the order is operative since 5.8.2003 without any
allegation of any abuse of the liberty granted by the order of bail.
That being so it is submitted that no interference is called for.
There is no definition of the word 'Bail' in the Code, although
offences are classified as 'Bailable' and 'Non-Bailable'. Section 2(a)
defines 'Bailable Offence' to mean an offence which is known as
bailable in the first schedule or which is made bailable by any other
law for the time being in force and "Non-Bailable Offence" means any
other offence.
Impugned order of the High Court reads as follows ;
"Applicant's counsel submits that
applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and
subsequently his name has been disclosed in the
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
after 3 days.
Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and without expressing any opinion
in the merits of the case applicant is admitted
to bail.
Let the applicant Meer Hasan @ Faddar involved
in case Crime no. 90/2003 under Sections
302/120-B I.P.C. P.S. Mandi District Saharanpur
be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and on furnishing two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
court concerned."
Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete
non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided
by the Court while passing orders on bail applications. Yet a court
dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether
there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits
of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application
for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course.
There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was
charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the
courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they
are:
1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the
charge.
Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of
mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr.
Etc. [(2001) 6 SCC 338)] and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].
Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the
parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application,
yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As
noted above, at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to
be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not
required to be indicated.
Above being the position, the cryptic non-reasoned order of the
High Court, is clearly indefensible.
The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail
bonds of the respondent no. 2 \026 accused are cancelled and he is
directed to surrender to custody forthwith and in case he does not do
so it shall be the duty of the respondent No. 1 \026 State to take him to
custody immediately. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 submitted that after charge-sheet is placed and/or charge is
framed, the accused shall move for bail afresh. If it is so done, it
goes without saying the same shall be considered on its own merit in
accordance with law, about which we express no opinion.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
The Supreme Court of India's ruling in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. & Anr., dated August 16, 2004, stands as a crucial precedent concerning the proper exercise of Bail Application Principles and the imperative of reasoned orders in matters of personal liberty. This judgment meticulously dissects the necessity for Judicial Discretion in Bail, particularly in grave offenses, a decision now easily accessible and analyzed on CaseOn.
The case originated from the murder of Prem Kumar, a money lender. According to the appellant, Chaman Lal, Prem Kumar had extended a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to an accused named Naeem. On March 11, 2003, Prem Kumar was reportedly lured to a factory by a telephone call from Naeem, where he was allegedly shot by respondent No. 2, Meer Hasan, and another accused, Wasim. It was specifically alleged that Meer Hasan fired the fatal shot.
Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) indicated "unknown assailants." However, statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), three days later, disclosed the name of respondent No. 2, Meer Hasan. Meer Hasan was subsequently charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Following his arrest, Meer Hasan's application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Undeterred, he then approached the High Court, which, through an impugned judgment, granted him bail. This decision by the High Court became the subject of challenge before the Supreme Court by the appellant, Chaman Lal.
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order, which granted bail to an accused in a serious murder case through a "cryptic" order without providing adequate reasons or demonstrating proper application of judicial mind, was legally sound and sustainable.
The Supreme Court reiterated established principles for granting bail, emphasizing that:
The Supreme Court critically reviewed the High Court's order. The High Court had simply noted the defense counsel's submission that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR and his name emerged three days later in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Based on this, it granted bail "without expressing any opinion in the merits of the case."
The Apex Court found this approach severely lacking, deeming the High Court's order a "complete non-application of mind" and "cryptic non-reasoned." The Supreme Court highlighted that merely stating "without expressing any opinion on the merits" is insufficient when granting bail for grave offenses like murder. There was no discussion of the crucial factors listed under the "Rule" section, such as the nature of the accusation, the evidence (even if prima facie), or the potential impact on justice. The absence of any discernible reason for granting bail, particularly in a case where the accused was specifically implicated in a fatal shooting, rendered the High Court's decision indefensible.
Legal professionals and students often grapple with the nuances of such judgments. CaseOn.in offers invaluable assistance through its 2-minute audio briefs, enabling quick and efficient analysis of these specific rulings, ensuring a deeper understanding of the court's reasoning and implications for legal practice.
In light of its analysis, the Supreme Court unequivocally set aside the High Court's impugned order. It canceled the bail bonds of respondent No. 2, Meer Hasan, and directed him to surrender to custody immediately. The Court clarified that while it was not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, if the accused were to apply for fresh bail after the charge-sheet is filed or charges are framed, such an application should be considered on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. The appeal filed by Chaman Lal was accordingly allowed.
The Supreme Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. & Anr. addressed the inappropriate grant of bail by the High Court in a murder case. The High Court's order was criticized for being cryptic and demonstrating a "complete non-application of mind" by failing to provide reasons for granting bail in a serious offense. The Apex Court reiterated the essential factors for considering bail applications, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and reasoned orders. Consequently, the High Court's bail order was set aside, and the accused was directed to surrender.
This judgment serves as a vital reminder for legal professionals and students alike regarding the fundamental principles governing bail. It underscores that:
Understanding this ruling is crucial for anyone involved in criminal law, from drafting bail applications to arguing appeals, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained.
Please note that all information provided in this analysis is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is essential to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to specific legal issues.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....