Subhash Chandra Singh vs Dheemant Singh & Anr

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondent No.1.

The appeal is by the father of the Shobhna (hereinafter referred to as the

`deceased') who was married to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the death took place within seven years of the marriage and it was unnatural

death. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order granted bail. It

is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that no reason has been

indicated for directing grant of bail and even the conclusions are

contradictory in terms.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted

that the bail was granted on 30th October, 2007. There is no allegation that

the accused respondent No. 1 has misused the liberty after release on bail.

The charge sheet has already been submitted and the investigation is over.

The accused was in custody for more than five months.

4. Even 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.

2

5. 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.

6. Any order dehors 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 Ranjan alias Pappu

Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].

3

7. The above position was highlighted by this Court in Anwari Begum v.

Sher Mohd. (2005(7) SCC 326).

8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the

High Court's order is a bundle of confusion. On one hand it is noted that

there was no dispute that the death had taken place within seven years of the

marriage and that it was unnatural death. Having said so, it is not

understood as to how the High Court observed that the provisions of

Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence

Act') are not applicable and this is not a case punishable under Section 304

B IPC. That being so we set aside the impugned order of the High Court

and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration and disposal by a reasoned

order.

9. The Appeal is allowed.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

4 ...........................................J. (ASOK KUAMR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 20, 2009

5