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