MS. P. VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Case

MS. P. VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Case


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3564 of 2022]
MS. P. ….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ….. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Hima Kohli, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by way of special leave arises from an order dated 16th
November, 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature for Madhya Pradesh; at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 55343 of 2021,
whereby an application filed by the respondent No. 2/accused under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
 has been allowed and he has
been granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court and certain other conditions imposed therein by
the learned Single Judge in connection with Crime No. 39/21 registered on
1 for short “Cr.P.C.”
Page 1 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
the complaint of the appellant at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jabalpur, State of
Madhya Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602
.
3. A brief recapitulation of the facts of the instant case is necessary. The
allegations levelled against the respondent No. 2/accused as recorded in FIR
dated 21st June, 2021 are that he had induced the appellant/complainant to
establish a physical relationship with him on the false pretext of marrying her.
The appellant/ complainant has stated that the respondent No. 2 has been in
physical intimacy with her since July, 2019, when on applying vermillion
(sindhoor) on her forehead, he had convinced her that they had got married
as per Hindu rituals. Subsequently, in July, 2020 when the appellant informed
the respondent No. 2 that she was pregnant, he along with his sister had
taken her to a private hospital at Jabalpur and had made her consume some
pills to undergo abortion, without her knowledge. It has been alleged that
thereafter, the respondent No.2 started avoiding the appellant and stopped
returning her calls. When confronted by the appellant, he categorically
refused to solemnize their marriage. On the appellant’s complaint, the FIR
was registered against the respondent No.2 on 21st June, 2021.
4. Apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No. 2 filed an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., before the learned Additional Sessions
2 for short the “IPC”
Page 2 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
Judge, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh seeking anticipatory bail which was
dismissed vide order dated 30th June, 2021. A fresh application for anticipatory
bail was moved by the respondent No. 2 before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur which was opposed by the appellant who
filed objections thereto. Vide order dated 10th August, 2021 the said
application was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejection
of his application for anticipatory bail, respondent No. 2 had approached this
Court by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6617 of 2021
which was dismissed vide order dated 13th September, 2021.
5. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the
prosecution on 25th October, 2021. Within four days reckoned therefrom,
respondent No. 2 applied before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., that was
rejected by an order dated 29th October, 2021. The respondent No. 2 then
moved the High Court for grant of regular bail. The said application has been
allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 16th November, 2021.
Aggrieved by the relief granted to the respondent No. 2, the
appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal by way of special leave
seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to him.
6. Ms. Shikha Khurana, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned order stating that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by
Page 3 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
the High Court for granting bail to the respondent No. 2; that the High Court
has erred in overlooking the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2 and
his father who are politically well connected and are in an influential position
due to which there is an apprehension of threat to the appellant; that the High
Court has ignored the material evidence including photographs produced by
the appellant showing that the respondent No.2 has applied vermillion on her
forehead as a symbol of having sanctified their relationship in the eyes of the
society. Learned counsel specifically drew the attention of this Court to the
photographs enclosed with the petition and marked as Annexure P-2 which
show a beaming appellant and the respondent No.2/accused in close
proximity with vermillion applied on her forehead. Another photograph is
stated to be that of the appellant with the mother of the respondent No. 2, in
happier times.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant asserts that the appellant had given her
consent to the respondent No. 2 to establish a physical relationship with her
only after he had promised her that he would marry her which turned out to be
a false promise and in the process, the appellant had conceived which
pregnancy was also got forcibly terminated by the respondent No. 2. It was
further submitted that after being released on regular bail, respondent No. 2
started threatening the appellant. That had compelled her father to lodge a
complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur vide letter dated 14th
Page 4 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
December, 2021 wherein it was submitted that immediately after being
released from jail, respondent No.2 had taken out a procession and had
mounted hoardings in the city, with his photographs prominently displayed,
celebrating his release which fact is stated to be borne out from the
photographs annexed with the petition and marked as Annexure P-16.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said hoardings were
strategically placed by the respondent No.2 and his family members at
locations situated between the locality where the appellant and her family
reside and the work place of her father, thus, trying to mock at them.
8. Notice was issued on the present petition on 11th April, 2022. As per postal
tracking report service is complete on both the respondents and also by way
of proof of service filed by the counsel for the appellant, after effecting service
on the Standing Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Ms. Charu
Ambwani, counsel for respondent No.2 already on caveat, has filed a counter
affidavit in opposition to the present petition and the State is also represented
today before us.
9. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.2 has supported the impugned order passed by the High Court granting
regular bail in favour of the respondent No. 2. Although it has not been
disputed that the respondent No.2 and the appellant were having a
consensual physical relationship, the plea taken is that respondent No.2 had
Page 5 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
not made any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage to
the appellant. Both the parties were known to each other for long and had
voluntarily got into a physical relationship that had lasted for over two years. It
was pointed out that though the appellant refers to incidents of the year 2019
and 2020, the FIR was belatedly registered only in June, 2021, without
explaining the delay.
10. Alleging that the appellant and her father were trying to blackmail the
respondent No. 2 and they had raised an illegal demand on him for closure of
the case, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2
submitted that the present petition is yet another attempt to pressurize the
respondent No. 2 to marry the appellant. As for the photographs of the
posters annexed at Annexure P-16 of the petition, it has been submitted that
the said posters had been put up in the first week of February, 2022, which is
almost three months after the impugned order was passed granting bail to the
respondent No. 2 and the said photographs clearly show that the respondent
No. 2 was sending greetings on the annual festival of “Maa Narmada Jayanti”
that was celebrated this year in the month of February.
11. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the respondent No.1/State of Madhya Pradesh has supported
the appeal and submitted that the High Court has failed to take into
consideration the fact that the respondent No. 2 and his father are involved in
Page 6 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
five criminal cases out of which respondent No.2 is an accused in four
criminal cases and his father is an accused in one criminal case, all registered
at different police stations in Jabalpur, for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506 IPC and this itself was sufficient ground to
have rejected the bail application filed by the respondent No. 2. It was also
pointed out that the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
is consistent with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
thus lending credence to her version vis-à-vis the respondent No.2.
12. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court
was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case.
13. It is no doubt true that the High Court or for that matter, the Sessions Court
have a wide discretion in deciding an application for bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. However, the said discretion must be exercised after due application
of the judicial mind and not in a routine manner. In Ram Govind Upadhyay
 v. Sudarshan Singh and Others3
, falling back on an earlier decision in the
case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another4
, this Court had observed as follows: -
“4(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only
the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
3 (2002) 3 SCC 598
4 (2001) 4 SCC 280
Page 7 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter
of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
14. Similarly, in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another5
, this Court had noticed certain aspects relevant for consideration at the time of granting bail,
namely:
“9. ….. (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 with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (3)
prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.”
15. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra
 Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav And Another6
, where the
parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of bail by the Courts has
been explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very wellsettled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at
the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not
be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted
particularly where the accused is charged of having committed
a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would
5 (2004) 7 SCC 525
6 2004 (7) SCC 528
Page 8 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the
court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the
following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) the nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature
of supporting evidence.
(b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat
 to the complainant.
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
of the charge.”
(See Ram Govind Upadhyay [supra] and Puran v. Rambilas
and Another7
)”
The aforesaid decision also acknowledges the fact that the conditions
stipulated under Section 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C. ought to be taken into consideration
for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
16. In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee And Another8
after referring to several precedents, this Court held thus:
“9. …However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe 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;
7 (2001) 6 SCC 338
8 (2010) 14 SCC 496
Page 9 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.”
17. The aforesaid principles have been restated in several decisions rendered by
this Court including Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu
 Yadav and Another9
 , Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and
 Another10
 , Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of
 Investigation and Another11
 , Abdul Basit alias Raju and Others v. Mohd.
 Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another12
, Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar
 Pradesh and Another13
, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
 Another14
, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another15, and as
recently as in Jagjeet Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu and
 Another16

18. Courts have placed the liberty of an individual at a high pedestal and
extended protection to such rights, whenever and wherever required. At the
same time, emphasis has also been laid on furnishing reasons for granting
bail even though they may be brief. In Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh
 And Another17
, it has been observed by this Court as follows:
9 (2004) 7 SCC 528
10 (2008) 13 SCC 584
11 (2012) 4 SCC 134
12 (2014) 10 SCC 754
13 (2014) 16 SCC 508
14 (2018) 12 SCC 129
15 (2020) 2 SCC 118
16 (2022) SCC online SC 453
17 (2009) 14 SCC 286
Page 10 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
“15. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual
is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts.
Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every
situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the
interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of
a person accused of an offence would depend upon the
exigencies of the case.”
19. In the same strain as expressed above, this Court has held in Ash Moham-
 mad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another18, as follows :
“17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person
should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a
person has immense impact on the mind of a person.
Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an
individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless
to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a
civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is
wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow
within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual
liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation
must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an
individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law
and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a wellaccepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm
of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for
justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for
security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an
individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to
be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law
subserve the social balance and function as a significant
instrument for protection of human rights and security of the
collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their
obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully
in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest.
That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty
opined, “it is regulated freedom”.
20. It is true that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled. In Dolat Ram And
 Others v. State of Haryana19, this Court has held that very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail
once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. It is equally
true that an unjustified or perverse order of bail is vulnerable to interference
18 (2012) 9 SCC 446
19 (1995) 1 SCC 349
Page 11 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
by the superior Court. So is an order where irrelevant material has been
taken into consideration [Refer : Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) (Supra)]. The
factors that are paramount for cancellation of bail have been succinctly stated
in Prakash Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and
 Another20 in the following words:
“18. In considering whether to cancel the bail the court has also
to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie
case against the accused, the position and standing of the
accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the
accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him. Moreover, the above principle applies
when the same court which granted bail is approached for
cancelling the bail. It will not apply when the order granting bail
is appealed against before an appellate/Revisional Court.
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is
granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is
likelihood of misuse of the bail. That factor, though no doubt
important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors
also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”
21. Echoing the above principle, in Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
 And Others21, it has been held thus:
“19. …….There is also a distinction between the concept of
setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and
cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused
has misconducted himself or certain supervening
circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting
bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can
be annulled by the superior court……..”
22. In Abdul Basit alias Raju And Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary
 And Another22
, this Court has opined that :
“19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified,
illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of
20 (2011) 6 SCC 189
21 (2013) 16 SCC 797
22 (2014) 10 SCC 754
Page 12 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct
or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail
which require such cancellation and a perusal of the
aforesaid decisions would present before us that an order
granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal
or contrary to law by the court superior to the court which
granted the bail and not by the same court.”
23. In a recent decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Imran v.
Mohammed Bhava and Another23 it has been held as follows:
23. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail has
been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for
its cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment in Vipan
Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 3 has also reiterated,
that while conventionally, certain supervening circumstances
impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an
accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also
be revoked by a superior court, when the previous court
granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record,
gravity of the offence or its societal impact. It was thus
observed:-
“9. …… Conventionally, there can be supervening
circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are
non conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the
bail. This Court in Daulat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana
observed that:
“Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so
granted, have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not
exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of
Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due
course of justice or abuse of the concession
granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material
placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it
23 2022 SCC OnLine SC 496
Page 13 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial.”
10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more
recently by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in X Vs. State of
Telengana and Another.
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s),
bail can also be revoked where the court has considered
irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on
record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable.
The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal
impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation
is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a
Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the
miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of
criminal justice system…”
24. XXXXX
25. XXXXXX
26. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already
granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when
granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on
record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not
been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where
bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail
is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited herein
above, enumerate certain basic principles which must be borne
in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail.
Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which
assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters,
grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the
above-mentioned well-settled principles.
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once
granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances
have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that
it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial24. To put it differently, in ordinary
24 Refer 1995 (1) SCC 349 (Daulat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana)
Page 14 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by
the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or
perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is
susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the
circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below: -
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal
activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground
and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.

We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not
exhaustive.
25. Keeping the aforesaid parameters to be borne in mind when dealing with a
petition where not only has the order granting bail been assailed on the
ground of perversity and illegality, supervening circumstances have been
Page 15 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
pleaded by the appellant that justify interference by this Court, we may now
proceed to deal with the instant case.
26. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the sole ground on which
the concession of bail has been extended by the High Court to the respondent
No.2 is the delay on the part of the appellant/complainant in lodging the FIR,
without offering any plausible explanation for the same. Absence of cogent
reasons and failure to refer to the relevant factors that weighed with the Court
to grant bail is also an important factor that can persuade the Appellate Court
to interfere with the order passed. In this context, this Court has referred to
the consequences of failure to give reasons for granting bail in Ms. Y v. State
of Rajasthan And Another.25 and speaking for the Bench, Hon’ble Chief
Justice N.V. Ramana has observed that:-
“17. Apart from the general observation that the facts and
circumstances of the case have been taken into account, nowhere
have the actual facts of the case been adverted to. There appears to
be no reference to the factors that ultimately led the High Court to
grant bail. In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the impugned order.
18. Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every
order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our
system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of
arbitrariness. In Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 this
Court held as under:
“8. …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 has not to be undertaken. What
the Additional Sessions Judge had done in the order
dated 1192000 was to discuss the merits and demerits
of the evidence. That was what was deprecated. That
did not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons
25 Order in Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 @ SLP(Crl) No. 7893 of 2021 dated 19th April 2022
Page 16 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
for prima facie concluding why bail was being
granted did not have to be indicated.” (emphasis
supplied)
19. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004)
7 SCC 528 this Court indicated the importance of
reasoning in the matter concerning bail and held as
follows:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very
well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima
facie concluding why bail was being granted
particularly where the accused is charged of having
committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of
such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of
mind… (emphasis supplied)
20. In Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna, (2009) 1 SCC 678, which
concerned a challenge to grant of bail in a serious offence, this
Court has reiterated the same position as was observed in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). This Court has held as under:
“12… However, we find from the order that no
reasons were given by the learned Judge while
granting the bail and it seems to have been granted
almost mechanically without considering the pros
and cons of the matter. While granting bail,
particularly in serious cases like murder some
reasons justifying the grant are necessary.””
 (emphasis supplied)
27. The impugned order reveals that the High Court has made short shrift of the
submissions made by the prosecution counsel to the effect that in her
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the
appellant/complainant has not waivered and stuck to her version and the fact
that the respondent No. 2 has previous criminal history. It is worthwhile to note
Page 17 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
that the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 were brought to the
notice of the High Court by the appellant/complainant and learned counsel for
the respondent No.1/State has also confirmed that he is involved in at least
four criminal cases as detailed below:
Accused Crime No. Police Station Sections
Indian Penal Code,
1860
Respondent No.2
Accused
249/2015 Laadganj, Jabalpur 294, 324, 506 and 34
Respondent No.2
Accused
423/2017 Madan Mahal, Jabalpur 294, 323, 324, 452, 506 and
34
Respondent No.2
Accused
294/2017
177/2019
Civil Lines, Jabalpur 294, 323, 324
Respondent No.2
Accused
56/2019 Civil Lines, Jabalpur 143 and 188
28. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the appellant/ complainant that the
respondent No.2’s bail order deserves to be set aside not only on the grounds
stated above, but also in the light of his blatant conduct subsequent to being
released for which reference has been made to his photographs appearing in
the social media with his snapshots prominently displayed on
posters/hoarding in the forefront with the faces of some influential persons of
the society in the backdrop, welcoming him with captions like “Bhaiyaa is
back”, “Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to Role Janeman”.
29. The explanation sought to be offered for the above by the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 is that he is a student leader who belongs to a
Page 18 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
community that celebrates the festival “Maa Narmada Jayanti” and the
posters in question have nothing to do with his being released on bail.
However, the captions referred to above with emojis of crowns and hearts
thrown in for good measure, belie this version.
30. Even if it is assumed that the posters in question were not contemporaneous
to the release of the respondent No.2 from detention, the captions tagged to
his photographs on the social media highlight the superior position and power
wielded by the respondent No.2 and his family in the society and its
deleterious impact on the appellant/complainant. The emojis of crowns and
hearts tagged with the captions quoted above are devoid of any religious
sentiments sought to be portrayed by the respondent No.2. On the other
hand, they amplify the celebratory mood of the respondent No.2 and his
supporters on his having been released from detention in less than two
months of being taken into custody for a grave offence that entails sentence
of not less than ten years that may even extend to life. The brazen conduct of
the respondent No.2 has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the
appellant/complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains
enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material
witnesses. It is noteworthy that a representation has also been submitted by
the appellant’s father to the Superintendent of Police, District Jabalpur
expressing the very same apprehension.
Page 19 of 20
CRL. A. NO. OF 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) NO.3564 OF 2022
31. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the respondent No. 2 does not deserve the concession of bail.
Relevant material brought on record has been overlooked by the High Court
while granting him bail. The supervening adverse circumstances referred to
above, also warrant cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the impugned order is
quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender
within one week from the date of passing of this order.
32. It is however clarified that the observations made above are confined to
examining the infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to the respondent
No.2 and his conduct thereafter and shall not be treated as an opinion on the
merits of the case which shall be decided on the basis of the evidence that
shall be placed before the trial Court. This order shall also not preclude the
respondent No.2 from applying afresh for bail at a later stage, if any, new
circumstances are brought to light.
33. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms.
.................................CJI.
 [N. V. RAMANA]
 ...................................J.
 [KRISHNA MURARI]
 ...................................J.
 [HIMA KOHLI]
New Delhi,
May 05, 2022.
Page 20 of 20

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर