REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                    OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7460 of 2007)

Dhuk Singh  …..Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr.  ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the grant of bail to respondent No.2 who

had applied for bail during the pendency of the proceedings relating to FIR

No.20/2007 Police Station, Syala, District Jalore.

3. A  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Rajasthan  High  Court  at  Jodhpur

allowed the bail application.  The High Court stated that the question as to

whether  respondent  No.2  was  to  be  added  as  an  accused  is  the  subject

matter of examination by the High Court, while considering the scope and

ambit  of  Section 169 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (in  short

‘Code’).  The High Court did not examine the case on merits and on that

score alone accepted the prayer for bail.  It needs to be noted that learned

Sessions Judge, Jalore, had rejected the bail application on considering the

nature of allegations against the present respondent No.2.   

4. The informant had filed the present appeal questioning grant of bail

to respondent No.2.  It is submitted that contrary to the view expressed by

this  Court  in  a large number of  cases,  without  indicating  any reason the

order granting bail was passed.  Learned counsel for the State supported the

stand of the appellant.  On the contrary learned counsel for respondent No.2

submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was elucidated by

this Court in Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2004 (13) SCC

9) and, therefore, the High Court was justified in granting bail.

5. The parameters to be kept in view while dealing with an application

for bail  have  been indicated  by this  Court  in  several  cases;  for  example

Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohd. (2005 (7) SCC 325), Chaman Lal v. State of

U.P. (2004 (7) SCC 525),  Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P. (2006 (9)

SCC 425) and  State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. v.  Eslian @

2

Jothi Basu (2006 (9) SCC 785).  It has been held that the court considering

the  bail  application  has  to  consider  among  other  circumstances  the

following:

(i) the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment in case of

conviction  and  the  nature  of  supporting  evidence;  (ii)  reasonable

apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the

complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the

charge.     

6. In that view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High

Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.  Needless to say that

the High Court shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

……………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, February 09, 2009

3