PREM GIRIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                      [2017] 12 S.C.R. 487



                           PREM GIRI                                  A

                                v.

                    STATE OF RAJASTHAN

                (Criminal Appeal No. 2188 of2017)                     B

                      DECEMBER 14, 2017

  [R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:                               C
      s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Rejection of: by High Court - On
appeal, held: High Court failed to assign any reason for rejecting
the bail - Thus, did not apply its judicial mind and passed the order
in a causal and cavalier manner - Matter remitted to High Court to
decide the application afresh in accordance with law - Bail.          D
     Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
       HELD: 1. High Court failed to assign any reason for
rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The general
observations that "Looking to the overall facts and circumstances     E
of the case, it is not considered proper to grant bail to the
Petitioner" can never be the reasoning much less judicial
reasoning required for rejection of the bail petition whether it is
filed under Section 438 or Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The High Court
did not apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order in      F
a very casual and cavalier manner. It will be just and proper to
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application
afresh on its merits and in accordance with law. [Paras 7, 8, 9 and
12) [489-C-E; 490-G]
      Kalyan Chandra Sarkar I'. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
                                                                      G
      Yadav & Am: (2004) 7 SCC 528 - relied on.
                       Case Law Reference
      (2004) 1 sec 528         relied on            . Para 9

                                                                      H
                               487
488            ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No.2188 of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2017 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B Crimil)al Miscellaneous
      Bail No.947112017.
B           Puneet Jain, Ms.Christi Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Priya!Jain, Abhinav
      Gupta, Ms.Pratibha Jain, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted.
C             2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
      22. l 1.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
      Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.9471 of2017 whereby the Single
      Judge of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed under Section
      438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as
D     "the Code") by the appellant herein.
           3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however,
      need mention infra to appreciate the short issue involved in the case.
             4. The appellant apprehending his arrest in .connection with
      commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323,
 E    308, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
      as "the IPC") pursuant to FIR No. 332/2017 registered at Police Station
      Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under
      Section 438 of the Code before the High Court ofRiuasthan. The Single
      Judge of the High Court dismissed the application by impugned order,
      which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in
 F
      this Court by the applicant.
             5. The impugned order reads as under:
             "This bail application has been filed under Section 438
             CrPC in connection with FIR No.332/2017 registered at
 G           Police Station Jaitaran, Dist. Pali for the offences under
             Sections 143, 341, 323, 308, 332 & 353 IPC.
             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
             Prosecutor appearing for the State as also .learned counsel
             for the complainant and carefully perused the relevant
 H           material made available on record.
                PREM GIRi v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                 489
                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case,              A
       but without expressing any opinion on the merits and
       demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to
       enlarge the petitioner(s) on bail.
       Therefore, this bail application is rejected."
       6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused           B
the record of the case. In our view, keeping in view the order, which we
are passing, it is not necessary to issue notice to the State much less to
hear the State in this appeal.
       7. Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to
show that the Single Judge failed to assign any reason for rejecting the        c
bail application of the appellant.
       8. The general observations that "Looking to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, it is not considered proper to grant bail to the
Petitioner" can never be the reasoning much less judicial reasoning
required for rejection of the bail petition whether it is filed under Section   D
438 or Section 439 oft.he Code.
      9. We are constrained to observe that the learned Single Judge
did not apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order in a very
casual and cavalier manner. This Court cannot countenance such casual
approach of the High Court while deciding the application for bail.             E
       10. Time and again, this Court has emphasized the need for
assigning reasons while considering the grant or reject of the bail. It is
apt to reproduce what this Court has held in Paras 11 and 12 of the
decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528 on this issue.                                    F
      "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well
      settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
      discr.etion in a judicious .manner and not as a matter of
      course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
      examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of                    G
      the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
      need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima f'acie
      concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
      the accused is charged of having committed a serious
      offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from
                                                                                H
490             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A           non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court
            granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the
            following factors also before granting bail; they are:
            (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment
            in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
B           (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness
            or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
            (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
            charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
            (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas,(2001) 6 SCC 338)
c
            12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have
            been rejected there is a further onus on the court to
            consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by
            noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have
            been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of
D           the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court
            will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier
            rejection the subsequent application for bail should be
            granted. (See Ram Govilld Upadhyay)"
              11. In our considered opinion, the Single Judge failed to take note
 E    of the law laid down by this Court quoted supra and thus erred in passing
      the impugned order. He also neither set out the facts of the case nor
      mentioned the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the
      parties and nor his reasoning as to why he does not consider it proper to
      grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. This was the least, which was
      expected of from the Single Judge to keep in mind, while passing the
 F
      order.
             12. In such a situation arising in this case, we instead of considering
      the case of the appellant on its merits in this appeal consider just and
      proper to remand the c<1se to the High Court for deciding the bail
      application afresh on its merits and in accordance with law.
 G
             13. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the
      merits of the case of the appellant having formed an opinion to remand
      the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application afresh on
      merits and, therefore, the High Court would decide the bail application
      un-influenced by any of our observations on merits except to take into
 H
                PREM GIRI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                491
                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

account what we have said about the manner in which the bail application       A
is required to be decided.                                    ·
       14. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the
High Court for deciding the bail application of the appellant afresh on its
merits.                                                                        B


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.