2002 JTR(SC) 168
2002 2 AICLR 114 ; 2003 1 GLR 686 ; 2002 2 JT 431 ; 2003 3 RCR(Cri) 153 ; 2009 14 SCC 292 ; 2010 1 SCC(Cri) 1373 ; 2002 3 ShimLC 446 ; 2002 1 WLC 403 ; 2009 KHC 6062 ; 2002 6 Supreme 428
2002(6) Supreme 428
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B. Shah and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana -Appellant
versus
Ashok Kumar Haraklal Mittal and Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2002
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3444 of 2001)
Decided on 1-2-2002
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.487
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.473, S.437
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.49, S.302
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The appeal pertains to a serious criminal matter invoking Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 309, governing the trial and expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The High Court of Gujarat, while exercising powers relating to bail, set aside a well-reasoned trial court order refusing bail without recording reasons, which this Court finds to be against the established principles of law and the interest of justice. The statutory framework contemplates that in offences involving grave allegations such as causing death, judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the likelihood of witness tampering, and the necessity to prevent the subversion of criminal justice. The case further highlights the interplay between personal liberty under law and the collective interest of society in ensuring that serious criminal trials are not impeded by procedural irregularities or arbitrary decisions.
(B) Key legal principles include that the grant or refusal of bail is a judicial function to be discharged judicially and not arbitrarily; courts must record reasons while exercising bail powers; appellate courts should normally defer to High Court bail orders unless there is a clear error; and in serious offences under Sections 302 and 149 IPC, courts must be particularly vigilant against the risk of accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The interest of justice and the fair administration of criminal justice must prevail over casual or unexplained interference with trial court orders.
Facts of the case:
The accused were facing charges under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code involving causing death by inflicting injuries with a weapon such as a knife. They also had a criminal background dating back to 1989, with multiple cases on record, some resulting in acquittals and others still pending. The trial court had considered these factors and refused bail. The High Court of Gujarat, however, set aside this order without recording reasons and without giving an opportunity to the investigating officer, while the prosecution appeared to have waived service and did not press for a reasoned order. The accused resided in the Delhi Gate area of Palanpur, and the allegations included a prima facie case under Section 149 read with Section 302 IPC, with apprehension that the accused might threaten or turn hostile prosecution witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the High Courts approach to be unfortunate and against established principles, noting that the refusal of bail in a serious case such as this must be based on recorded reasons and judicial application. It observed that the accused, facing murder and rioting charges, could pose a risk to the investigation by intimidating witnesses if released prematurely. The Court emphasized that personal liberty should not be interfered with arbitrarily and that the trial must be conducted expeditiously in compliance with Section 309 IPC.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial courts order refusing bail without recording reasons and without hearing the investigating officer; whether the accused should be granted bail in a serious offence under Sections 302 and 149 IPC without adequate judicial scrutiny; and whether the interest of justice and the fair administration of criminal justice demand that bail be refused in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi:
Bail in serious offences attracting Sections 302 and 149 IPC must be determined on merits after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the risk of witness tampering, and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal trial process. An appellate court must set aside an unexplained order of the High Court that undermines the reasoned decision of the trial court and direct restoration of such orders, ensuring strict adherence to Section 309 IPC for speedy trial.
(A) The appeal pertains to a serious criminal matter invoking Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 309, governing the trial and expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The High Court of Gujarat, while exercising powers relating to bail, set aside a well-reasoned trial court order refusing bail without recording reasons, which this Court finds to be against the established principles of law and the interest of justice. The statutory framework contemplates that in offences involving grave allegations such as causing death, judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the likelihood of witness tampering, and the necessity to prevent the subversion of criminal justice. The case further highlights the interplay between personal liberty under law and the collective interest of society in ensuring that serious criminal trials are not impeded by procedural irregularities or arbitrary decisions.
(B) Key legal principles include that the grant or refusal of bail is a judicial function to be discharged judicially and not arbitrarily; courts must record reasons while exercising bail powers; appellate courts should normally defer to High Court bail orders unless there is a clear error; and in serious offences under Sections 302 and 149 IPC, courts must be particularly vigilant against the risk of accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The interest of justice and the fair administration of criminal justice must prevail over casual or unexplained interference with trial court orders.
Facts of the case:
The accused were facing charges under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code involving causing death by inflicting injuries with a weapon such as a knife. They also had a criminal background dating back to 1989, with multiple cases on record, some resulting in acquittals and others still pending. The trial court had considered these factors and refused bail. The High Court of Gujarat, however, set aside this order without recording reasons and without giving an opportunity to the investigating officer, while the prosecution appeared to have waived service and did not press for a reasoned order. The accused resided in the Delhi Gate area of Palanpur, and the allegations included a prima facie case under Section 149 read with Section 302 IPC, with apprehension that the accused might threaten or turn hostile prosecution witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the High Courts approach to be unfortunate and against established principles, noting that the refusal of bail in a serious case such as this must be based on recorded reasons and judicial application. It observed that the accused, facing murder and rioting charges, could pose a risk to the investigation by intimidating witnesses if released prematurely. The Court emphasized that personal liberty should not be interfered with arbitrarily and that the trial must be conducted expeditiously in compliance with Section 309 IPC.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial courts order refusing bail without recording reasons and without hearing the investigating officer; whether the accused should be granted bail in a serious offence under Sections 302 and 149 IPC without adequate judicial scrutiny; and whether the interest of justice and the fair administration of criminal justice demand that bail be refused in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi:
Bail in serious offences attracting Sections 302 and 149 IPC must be determined on merits after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the risk of witness tampering, and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal trial process. An appellate court must set aside an unexplained order of the High Court that undermines the reasoned decision of the trial court and direct restoration of such orders, ensuring strict adherence to Section 309 IPC for speedy trial.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Normally, this Court does not interfere in the bail matters and the orders of High Court are generally accepted to be final relating to grant or rejection of bail. However, it is really unfortunate that without considering the nature and gravity of offence, the High Court of Gujarat without recording any reasons has set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court, refusing the bail to the accused involved in an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the serious allegations made against the accused, it has been pointed out that while rejecting the bail application, trial Court has taken into consideration the following facts :
"While taking into consideration the provisions of section 149 of IPC to my mind, there is substantial allegation of serious offence against all the five accused of causing death by causing injuries with weapon like knife to the deceased Pareshbhai, against whom it appears, there is prima facie case, and it does not appear proper to enlarge such accused on bail.
Wife of accused Piyushbhai is a member of Palanpur Municipality and criminal proceeding has been done in first C.R. No. 191/99 and C.R. No. 288/99 under Sections 324, 506(2) IPC.
All the accused are resident of Delhi Gate area of Palanpur.
The facts revealed from the affidavits on behalf of the prosecution that : it is likely that the accused will give threats to the prosecution witnesses and will turn them hostile by making and having got made false cases. This doubt of the prosecution in the facts of this case, do not appear to me without any substance."
4. In the affidavit filed before this Court, it has been further pointed out that the accused are having criminal background since 1989 and various cases are filed against them. This aspect is neither disputed by the learned counsel for the state government nor by the counsel for the accused. However, it has been stated on behalf of the accused that in some of the cases, accused are acquitted and rest are pending.
5. In the facts of the present case, it is also surprising that when well-reasoned order was before the High Court, without giving an opportunity to the concerned investigating officer, additional public prosecutor appearing before the court waived the service and not pressed for any reasoned order for granting bail in such a serious case. In a case, where the accused are involved under Section 302 IPC, it should not be forgotten that granting or refusing to grant bail is the function of the court to be discharged judicially and not arbitrarily.
6. In our view, such an order would be against the established principles of law and also against the interest of justice which has serious impact on the society. In such cases, if accused are let loose before the trial, they would have an opportunity to tamper with the evidence by their muscle and money power. It is equally true that personal liberty of the citizens should not be interfered without following the procedure of law but in cases like this, if such persons are released by mere asking, it would affect the administration of criminal justice. This Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr. [JT 1987(2) SC 323] observed, "liberty is to be secured through the process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused, the near and dear ones of the victim, who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution".
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order passed by the High Court is set aside. Order passed by the additional sessions judge, Banaskantha district, Palanpur is restored. The concerned authorities are directed to take the accused into custody forthwith. However, we direct the trial Court to follow strictly the provisions of Section 309 IPC and conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Appeal allowed.
***************