REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  787                 OF 2009   (Arising out of SLP( Crl.) No. 3246 of 2008)

Subhash Chandra Singh ..Appellant

versus

Dheemant Singh & 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 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