Libertatem Magazine

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

Contents of this Page

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. 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.

About the Author