# 6 S.C.R. 724 # tA SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH v. DHEEMANT SINGH & ANR

- **Citation:** [2009] 6 S.C.R. 724
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/6-s-c-r-724-ta-subhash-chandra-singh-v-dheemant-singh-anr-25923
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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
order - Challenge to - Held: There is a need to indicate in
the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was
D 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
..
F
sought bail from the High Court. The High Court
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.
G
I._
~
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 c
for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted
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 D
.
~
bail, they are: I) the nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
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.
G
..... ,.
On one hand it 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 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

## Text

[2009) 6 S.C.R. 724
#
tA
SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH
v.
DHEEMANT SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2009)
B
APRIL 20, 2009
[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
order - Challenge to - Held: There is a need to indicate in
the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was
D 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
..
F
sought bail from the High Court. The High Court
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.
G
I._
~
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 c
for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted
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 D
.
~
bail, they are: I) the nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
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.
G
..... ,.
On one hand it 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 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
E Yaduvanshi for the Appellant.
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
already been submitted and the investigation is over. The
B
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
D
required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course.
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;
L
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness
or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
G
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the
charge.
6.Any order dehors such reasons suffers from nonH
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.
E
9. The Appeal is allowed.
BBB.
Appeal allowed.