Karnataka High Court
Smt. Indu Chauhan @ Indu vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5427 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. INDU CHAUHAN @ INDU,
W/O. SRI. DEVENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.2503,
HIRA NANDINI TOWERS,
OMR ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 119. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. B.V. ACHARYA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
AMRUTHHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 092. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP.,
A/W SRI. BHANUPRAKASH V.G., SLP.P.P.]
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.18/2021 OF AMRUTHHALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B, 364 READ WITH
34 OF IPC., ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge her on bail
in a case registered at Amruthahally Police Station,
Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, in Crime No.18/2021. Charge-
sheet has been filed for offence punishable under Sections
302, 201, 120B, 364 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. During crime stage, the petitioner had preferred
Criminal Petition No.2482/2021 before this Court and the
said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Sessions Court in view of filing
of charge-sheet. After filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. No.5470/2021 before
the Sessions Court and the same has been rejected vide
Order dated 16.07.2021.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for
petitioner and the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent/State and perused the material on record.
4. This is yet another case wherein this Court finds
that the Sessions Court while rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner seeking bail, has totally ignored the relevant
aspects which are required to be considered before
disposing of a bail petition. This Court finds that after
narrating rival contentions and stating the facts, the
learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to reject the petition
without assigning proper reasons. The reasons assigned
are in para Nos.11 and 12, which are reproduced
hereunder:
"11. The offence punishable under sections 364, 302,
201, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, considering the facts
and circumstances as well as the nature and
gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that it is not
safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail. After perusal
of papers produced by the petitioner, no prima
facie is established by the petitioner to enlarge her
on bail.
12. After go through case records, charge sheet in toto
and submission of the both side that I am of the
viewed that there are prima facie material
particulars available against to the petitioner. The
offence leveled against to the petitioner is
punishable under sections 364, 302, 201, 120(B)
r/w 34 of IPC. The same offence is exclusively
triable by the court of session. Thereby the
judgments which are relied by the counsel for the
petitioner is not come to the rescue of the
petitioner. Hence with due respect upon all
judgments not applied to the case on hand. On the
other hand, by considering the all factors and
guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in a decision Sudha Singh Vs State of UP
reported in 2021 (2) KCCR 1427, that I am of
the view that there is no force in the argument of
the counsel for the petitioner."
5. It is a case wherein the prosecution has alleged
that the petitioner viz, accused No.3 conspired with
accused No.1 to commit the murder of one Siddarth, s/o.
first informant by giving supari and in furtherance of the
same, at the instigation of accused No.3 accused No.1
along with accused Nos.2 and 4 are alleged to have
committed the murder.
6. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident in
question and the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution is relying on various circumstances against
the petitioner. The order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge rejecting the prayer for bail would indicate that the
learned counsel for the petitioner raised various
contentions and also relied on number of
decisions/judgments. However, there is no discussion
whatsoever and this Court finds that no proper reasons are
assigned except as noted above, which are general in
nature.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh
Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana
(Koli) and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, has
held that;
"38. x x x x x It is a well-settled principle that in
determining as to whether ball should be granted,
the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions
Court deciding an application under Section 439
Cr.P.C would not launch upon a detailed evaluation
of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to
take place. These observations while adjudicating
upon bail would also not be binding on the
outcome of the trial. But the court granting bail
cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and
to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the
purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
x x x x x".
39. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is a matter
involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial
discretion in granting or refusing bail-as in the case
of any other discretion which is vested in a court as
a judicial institution- is not unstructured. The duty
to record reasons is a significant safeguard which
ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to
the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The
recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that
the thought process underlying the order is subject
to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of
reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v.
State of U.P. in a similar vein has held that an
order of a High Court which does not contain
reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail
should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-
application of mind. This Court observed: (SCC
p.527, para.8)
8. Even on a cursory perusal the High
Court's orders 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."
8. It is no-doubt true that this Court has got a
concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to
appreciate the material on record and pass order.
However, when a petition seeking bail is filed before a
Court that too in a serious offence, the Court is bound to
give reasons to come to a conclusion as to whether there is
a prima facie case and has to take into consideration other
relevant circumstances. The Court is bound to assign
reasons either to grant or reject the bail, though elaborate
discussion on merits of the case can be avoided. The case
on hand falls short of such reasoning. In that view of the
matter, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file
a fresh petition before the Sessions Court and in that
event, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties,
shall dispose of the said petition in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible.
9. All the contentions are kept open.
With the above observation, the petition is disposed
of.
SD/-
JUDGE
Ksm*
