1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2188 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.9672 of 2017)

Prem Giri            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Rajasthan    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  filed  against  the  final  judgment

and order dated 22.11.2017  passed by the High Court

of  Judicature  for  Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur  in  S.B.

Criminal  Misc.  Bail  No.9471  of  2017  whereby  the

Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  bail

2

application  filed  under  Section  438  of  the  Code  of

Criminal  Procedure,  1973(hereinafter  referred  to  as

“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, 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 of Rajasthan.

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  this

Court by the applicant.

5) The impugned order reads as under:

3

“This  bail  application  has  been  filed under Section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No.332/2017 registered at 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 material made available on record.

Looking  to  the  overall  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case,  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  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 bail application of

the appellant.

4

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 438 or Section 439 of the 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.

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.

5

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail  should  exercise  its  discretion  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 the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie 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  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)  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)

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  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 Govind Upadhyay)”

6

11) In our considered opinion, the Single Judge failed

to take note 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 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 case to the High Court for  deciding the

bail application afresh on its merits and in accordance

with law.

13) We, however, make it clear that we have not gone

into  the  merits  of  the  case  of  the  appellant  having

7

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 account what we have

said about the manner in which the bail application 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.       

               ………...................................J.           [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                            ... ……..................................J.

                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; December 14, 2017