A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari of the Supreme Court while setting aside a Kerala High Court order of granting bail to a man accused of the murder of a lady doctor, has, in the case of State of Kerala v. Mahesh observed that the seriousness of charges is one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications.
Factual Background
The State of Kerala filed an appeal against an order dated 21st December 2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala granting bail to the Respondent, accused of a heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor aged about 30 years.
Case of the Prosecution
The victim (after her divorce) met the Respondent accused, they became close and started living together- as a result of which- the victim became pregnant, but the Respondent forced her to undergo an abortion. The victim started a Multispeciality Dental Clinic (with her father's financial support) but the Respondent misappropriated money from the clinic and also harassed the victim.
The victim was thus constrained to separate from Respondent and start living at her own house. As the Respondent continued to threaten her, she along with her father, filed a complaint with Police. The victim was called to Police Station for a settlement. The Respondent stabbed the victim with a knife on the right side of the stomach, in the presence of her father, at her dental clinic.
An FIR was lodged u/Ss. 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal code (IPC). However, after the victim's death, Section 302 was added and an Inclusion Report to that effect was filed in the Jurisdictional Court. The crime as stated above was registered u/Ss. 341, 324, 201, 212, 307 and 302 of the IPC. The Respondent Accused was thus arrested.
A Bail application filed by the Respondent in the Sessions Court was dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a bail application in the High Court u/Ss. 439 of the Cr.P.C. The prayer for bail was opposed by the Public Prosecutor who argued that, if released, the Respondent would influence witnesses many of whom were his close relatives, friends and acquaintances.
The High Court granted bail to the Respondent, and this order is impunged in the present matter.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
While citing relevant case law, the Court observed that:
"“It is well settled that though the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, as held by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598.
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case.
4. Other relevant considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.””
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. the Supreme Court laid down the principles for examining the correctness of orders granting bail to an accused.
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”
The Court further observed that:
"there is no straight jacket formula for grant or refusal of bail, and the seriousness of the charge is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications as held in Sanjay Chandra (supra) cited on behalf of the Respondent Accused. All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses.”
With respect to the factual aspects of the case, the Court finally observed that:
It appears that the High Court has completely misappreciated the object, scope and ambit of the directions issued by this Court from time to time in In Re : Contagion of Covid 19 Virus In Prisons. This Court did not direct release of all under-trial prisoners, irrespective of the severity of the offence. After hearing the learned Attorney General of India, Mr. Venugopal, the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, Mr. Dushyant Dave and other Learned Counsel, the States and Union Territories were directed to constitute a High Powered Committee to determine which class of prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail for such period as might be thought appropriate.
By way of example, this Court directed the States/Union Territories to consider release of prisoners convicted of minor offences with prescribed punishment of seven years or less. The orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even before investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. The Respondent Accused, it is reiterated, is charged with murder in the presence of an eye witness, and the impugned order granting bail was filed even before the chargesheet was filed. The Chargesheet appears to have been filed on 01.01.2021. Moreover the Respondent Accused had been absconding after the incident.”
Held
The Appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
Case Details
Name: State of Kerala vs Mahesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1530 of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos. 24659 and 41412 of 2021
Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
