Supreme Court of India
SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGHversusDHEEMANT SINGH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 562
- Decided
- 20 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A bail order granting liberty in a serious offence case must be reasoned, indicating the court's prima facie satisfaction of the charge; otherwise it is a non‑application of mind and must be set aside.
Summary
The appellant, father of a woman who died unnaturally within seven years of marriage, challenged the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the accused husband, who was charged under IPC s.304B. The High Court had granted bail without providing any reasoning, merely stating that s.1138 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. The Supreme Court held that bail orders, especially in serious offence cases, must contain reasons showing a prima facie satisfaction of the charge and must reflect an application of mind. It emphasized that while exhaustive merits need not be examined, the court must consider the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of witness tampering, and prima facie evidence. Finding the High Court's order to be a non‑reasoned, confused order, the Court set it aside and remitted the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail order granting liberty in a serious offence case must be reasoned and indicate prima facie satisfaction of the charge.
- Whether the High Court erred in stating that s.1138 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable and that the case was not punishable under s.304B IPC.
- Whether a non‑reasoned bail order constitutes non‑application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 1138
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B
Subjects
bailreasoned ordernon-application of mindserious offenceIPC 304BEvidence Act 1138prima facie caseSupreme Court
Judgment
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 724 #
t-
A SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH
v.
DHEEMANT SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009)
APRIL 20, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Bail - Requirement of recording reasons while directing
c grant of bail - Unnatural death of wife within 7 years of
marriage - Criminal proceedings against husband - He
sought bail - High Court granted bail by a non-reasoned
D
order - Challenge to - Held: There is a need to indicate in
the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was
being granted particularly where the accused was charged of
having committed a serious offence - Any order de hors
. '
such reasons suffers from non-application of mind - Matter
remitted to High Court for fresh consideration and disposal
by a reasoned order - Penal Code, 1860 - s.3048 -
E Evidence Act, 1872 - s.1138.
Respondent no.1 's wife died within 7 years of
marriage. The death was unnatural. Criminal proceedings
were initiated against respondent no.1 whereupon he
~ ..
sought bail from the High Court. The High Court
F observed that the provisions of s.1138 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable and that it was not
a case punishable under s.3048 IPC and granted bail to
respondent no.1 by a practically non-reasoned order.
Hence the present appeal.
I._ ~
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Even a cursory perusal of the High
Court's order shows complete non-application of mind.
H 724
SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. DHEEMANT 725
SINGH &ANR.
1
Though detailed examination of the evidence and A
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 8
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. [Para 4] [727-8-D]
1.2. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons
for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted
c
particularly where an accused was charged of having
COIT!mitted a serious offence. It is necessary for the c9urts
dealing with application for bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also before granting
. ~
bail, they are: I) the nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
D
supporting evidence; ii) reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant; iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge. Any order dehors such reasons E
suffers from non-application of mind. [Paras 5 and 6]
[727-D-H; 728-A]
~
.. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
(2002)3 SCC 598; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. F
(2001) 6 SCC 338; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT 2004 (3) SC 442 and Anwari
Begum v. Sher Mohd. 2005 (7) SCC 326, relied on.
2. The High Court's order is a bundle of confusion.
..... ,. On one hand it noted that there was no dispute that the G
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 s.1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are
not applicable and this is not a case punishable under H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A s.304~ IPC. Th.at being so the impugned order of the High
court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh
consideration and disposal by a reasoned order. [Para 8]
[728-B-E]
8 Case Law Reference :
(2002) 3 sec 598 relied on · Para 6
(2001) s sec 338 relied on Para 6
JT 2004 (3) SC 442 relied on Para 6
c 2005 (7) sec 326 relied on Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 787 of 2009. ·
D From the Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application ....
No. 15520 of 2007.
Swaraj Kaushal, Dr. Monika Gusain and Hariom
Yaduvanshi for the Appellant.
E
U.U. Lalit, Reetesh Singh, Jhanvi Wona and Surya Kant
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ... ..-
F
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
G Shobhna (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who was
married to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the death took 1'. ,..
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
H appellant that no reason has been indicated for directing grant
SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. DHEEMANT 727
SINGH & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
of bail and even the conclusions are contradictory in terms. A
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the other
hand submitted that the bail was granted on 3oth October, 2007.
There is no allegation that the accused respondent No. 1 has
misused the liberty after release on bail. The charge sheet has B
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 c
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.
D
5. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for
prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly E
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 F
in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness
L or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the
charge.
G
6.Any order dehors such reasons suffers from non-
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 6 S.C.R.
A 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].
B
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
C 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
D 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.
E
BBB. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bail"Sign in to search