Uttarakhand High Court: Bail Cannot Be Granted in an Arbitrary or Fanciful Manner

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

The Applicant filed for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Applicant is alleged to have committed the murder of the informant’s brother. The informant’s parents were informed that their son’s dead body was hidden in the bushes. The dead body was indeed recovered from the spot. Post-mortem was conducted. And during the investigation, the Applicant, his wife and deceased’s wife came to light. Accordingly, the charge sheet was submitted.

Applicant’s Arguments

It has been submitted that the Applicant is falsely implicated. The evidence against the Applicant is only circumstantial. The Applicant and the deceased are close friends and had no motive to murder. He has been implicated on the basis of his confession in custody. This confession cannot be read against him. Further that the Applicant has no criminal history. Hence, must be released on bail.

State’s Arguments

Per contra, it has been submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record. This evidence points to the Applicant’s involvement. The offence is grievous in nature and hence liable to be rejected.

Court’s View

The Court laid emphasis on the Apex Court’s decision in Gian Chand and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 420. Therein, it was stated that each case depends on its own facts. A close similarity between cases is not enough. The court found that there was a polygraph test that was conducted against the deceased’s wife. In that, it was found that the Applicant and the deceased’s wife had extra-marital affairs.

Furthermore, the Court observed that Section 439 confers wide powers regarding bail. In that context, it is governed by the same considerations as other courts are. The facts include – the gravity of the crime; the character of the evidences and other grounds as required.

Further reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripati, (2005) 8 SCC 21. Wherein, the Apex Court observed the following considerations necessary:

  • whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
  • nature and gravity of charge;
  • severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
  • danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
  • character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
  • likelihood of the offence being repeated;
  • reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
  • danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Similarly, the Court referenced to Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598. Therein, the Apex Court expressed the importance of reasons for prima facie considering why bail is granted. Especially where the accused is charged with having committed a serious offence. Furthermore, the accused was in custody for over a year may not be a relevant consideration. This was so observed in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr., 2018 (1) CCSC 117.

Court’s Decision

The Court rejected the bail application for lack of sufficient grounds to grant one.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -