1 [CASE NUMBER] The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh [CASE NUMBER] (RAJKUMAR DOHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Gwalior, Dated : 30-10-2018 Shri [ENTITY], Counsel for the applicant. Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
Case diary is available.
This is third application filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] for grant of bail.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix and her father have been examined and they have supported the prosecution case and the mother of the prosecutrix has been given up and now since there is no possibility of manipulation for winning over the witnesses, therefore, he may be granted bail.
The Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held as under:-
14. Be it noted, though the aforesaid passages have their relevance but the same cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail. In the said case, the accused-appellant was facing trial for the offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Thus, the factual matrix was quite different. That apart, it depends upon the nature of the crime and the manner in which it is committed. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field.
15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in [PRECEDENT]. The requisite 2 [CASE NUMBER] factors 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 with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.In [PRECEDENT], it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors.
We may usefully reproduce the said passage:- (SCC p.499, para 9) "9 among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence.
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
16. In [PRECEDENT], the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:-(SCC p. 465, para 34) 34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the 3 [CASE NUMBER] character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
17. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.
In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from [PRECEDENT] wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed:
(SCC pp.514-15 para 16) "16.The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilization 4 [CASE NUMBER] rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralyzed and immobilized.
Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law."
18. In this context what has been stated by a three- Judge bench in [PRECEDENT] is quite instructive. In the said case, the Court has held that where the Court admits the accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. In view of the fact that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
The application is accordingly rejected.
5 [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY]) JUDGE (alok) [ENTITY] 2018.10.30 17:40:20 +05'30'