Quality reasoning for granting bail necessary for the application of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure: Supreme Court

IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 3721 Arising out of SLPNo 9221) Sonu Yadav and Another JUDGMENT This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 December 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 173320. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J Leave granted. Crl.A.377 2021 A First Information Report FIR No 0076 of 2019 was registered on 9 February 2019 at Police Station Friends Colony District Etawah for offences under Sections 498 A and 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1861. The First Information Report was registered on the complaint of the appellant who is the brother of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and the first respondent was solemnized on 5 July 2018. It has been alleged in the FIR that at the time of the marriage a cash amount of Rs 15 lakhs a motor vehicle and other household articles were provided in dowry. It has been alleged that the first respondent and his parents were not satisfied with the amount of dowry and an amount of Rs 5 lakhs was being demanded. On 8 February 2019 it has been alleged that at about 8.45 pm a phone call was received from a cell phone from the first respondent when the appellant was informed that if he wished to see his sister alive an amount of Rs 5 lakhs should be arranged. It has been alleged that the phone was then disconnected. However at 1.30 am on 9 February 2019 the appellant is alleged to have received a phone call requiring him to take away the dead body of his sister. The FIR records that the appellant together with the members of the family went to Etawah and found that the matrimonial home of the appellant’s sister was locked. They came to know that her dead body had been kept at the district hospital. On these allegations the First Information Report came to be registered at 11.49 am on 9 February 2019. A charge sheet has been submitted on 3 May 2019 for offences alleged under Sections 498 A and 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Crl.A.377 2021 Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail application filed by the first respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 18 June 2019. The High Court was thereafter moved in a bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. After recording the rival submissions the High Court allowed the application observing thus: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence evidence complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.” 5 We have heard Mr Vishal Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mr Ravinder Singh learned senior counsel for the first respondent and Mr Sanjay Jain learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh have appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court on 27 January 2021. 6 Mr Vishal Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits thatthe High Court has adduced absolutely no reasons for the grant of bail ii) the submission before the High Court that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness is patently false and the so called medical prescription dated 1 January 2019 was issued by an Ayurvedic doctor about a month before the date of the incident on 1 January 2019 ex facie the medical prescription would indicate that the deceased was not undergoing treatment for a mental condition the death has taken place within a year of the marriage andhaving regard to the provisions of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Crl.A.377 2021 the presumptions which arise under Sections 113 A and 113 B of the Evidence Act there was no justification for the High Court to grant bail at the present 7 On the other hand Mr Ravindra Singh learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has supported the view of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has desisted from expressing any view on the merits which may impede the course of the trial the statements which have been recorded during investigation would indicate that the death was as a result of hanging there is no complicity whatsoever of the first respondent iv) hence it would be appropriate for this Court not to interfere with the order granting bail to the first respondent. 8 Mr Sanjay Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of UP has submitted that an attempt has been made on behalf of the accused to improve upon the case in the course of the pleadings. He sought to demonstrate this by making a reference to paragraph 21 of the bail application filed before the High Court in which it was denied that the mobile number from which the informant was alleged to have received the phone call demanding additional dowry was in any manner associated with the family or the near relatives of the accused. On the other hand it has been pointed out that in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit before this court the specific case of the first respondent is that on 8 February 2019 when he was away from home to attend a marriage of a close friend he had received a call at 8.45 pm from the Crl.A.377 2021 same mobile number which is referred to in the FIR to the effect that his spouse has committed suicide. Hence it has been submitted that there has been a clear attempt to improve upon the case which was set up in the application for bail filed before the High Court. At the present stage certain basic aspects need to be noted. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was married to the sister of the appellant on 5 July 2018. She died on 8 February 2019 within a year of the marriage. There are specific allegations in the First Information Report in regard to the demand of dowry as well as in regard to a phone call being received from the accused in close proximity to the death of the sister of the appellant when a demand for additional amounts of money was made. The submission in support of bail recorded by the High Court was that the sister of the appellant was undergoing treatment for a mental illness. In this context it is material to note that in paragraph 22 of the bail application the plea was that the deceased was “suffering from severe headache and was mentally disturbed since the past nine months” and that she was taken to a doctor by the first respondent. A copy of the medical prescription which has been submitted before this Court would prima facie indicate that there was no serious ailment. The medical prescription of the Ayurvedic doctor and the remedies prescribed belie such a claim. Prima facie there are serious allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by the deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for dowry by the accused. In view of the provisions of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code as well as the presumption which arises under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act Crl.A.377 2021 the High Court was clearly not justified in granting bail. The order of the High Court granting bail contains absolutely no reasons at all. While it is true that at the time of considering an application for bail the High Court would not be required to launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which have to be determined in the course of trial equally an application of mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary. The High Court has merely recorded the submissions and in the extract which we have reproduced earlier proceeded to grant bail without any evaluation of the rival submissions. In this context it would be worthwhile to reproduce the principle which has been formulated in the two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal1 SCC 678 where the Court observed thus: “It is now a settled law that the complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed. It is not as if once a bail is granted by any court the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse. The bail order can be tested on merit also. In our opinion therefore the complainant could question the merits of the order granting bail. However we find from the order that no reasons were given by the learned Judge while granting the bail and it seems to have been granted almost mechanically without considering the pros and cons of the matter. While granting bail particularly in serious cases like murder some reasons justifying the grant are necessary.” In the earlier part of this judgment we have extracted the lone sentence in the order of the High Court which is intended to display some semblance of reasoning for justifying the grant of bail. The sentence which we have extracted earlier contains an omnibus amalgam of“the entire facts and circumstances of the case” “submissions of learned Counsel for the parties” “the nature Crl.A.377 2021 of offence” “evidence” and“complicity of accused”. This is followed by an observation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail” “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. This does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. The High Court cannot be oblivious in a case such as the present of the seriousness of the alleged offence where a woman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. The seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassed for dowry and that a telephone call was received from the accused in close proximity to the time of death making a demand. There are specific allegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry. An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. It is time that such a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice. Crl.A.377 2021 For the above reasons we are of the view that the order of the High Court granting bail without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law requires the interference of this Court. 13 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 1 December 2020 granting bail to the first respondent. The grant of bail to the first respondent shall accordingly stand set aside and the first respondent shall surrender forthwith. We however clarify that the observations contained in the present order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial. 14 Pending applications if any stand disposed of. [M R Shah] New Delhi April 5 2021 

Summary: When the High Courts grant bail vide the power vested to them under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, their order must be accompanied by a quality set of reasons for the grant of bail which the norm of the judicial process. The following judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu vs Sonu Yadav and Another [Crl. A. 377/2021] by a Double Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice  Dr. D Y Chandrachud and Hon’ble Shri Justice M R Shah. The present judgment was a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the high court of judicature of Allahabad under the Criminal Bail Application. An FIR was filed in District Etwah for the offenses mentioned under section 498A and 304B of the Indian penal Code and Section 3 and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1861. The same was filed by the brother of the deceased against the first respondent. It was further alleged that while the parents of the first respondent were not satisfied with the dowry, the first respondent made a phone call to the appellant stating that if Rs. 5 lakhs were not given the appellant’s sister would not be alive. The next day morning the appellant received a call to take away his Sister’s body. While the bail application was rejected by the sessions judge the High Court allowed the same under section 439 of the CrPC and granted bail without stating any reasons. The counsel for the appellant contended that there was absolutely no reason given for the grant of bail, the medication was prescribed a month before the incident, and the prescription-only supports that the deceased was undergoing medical treatment. Further, since the death happened within 1 year of marriage and based on Section 304B of the Indian penal code and the presumptions under section 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence act; there exists no ground for bail. The counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent argued that the High Court did not comment as it would impede the trial, the findings suggest hanging and no complicity of the First respondent, and therefore the court should not interfere in the grant of bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the medical prescription depicts how much the deceased had been mentally harassed in relation to the dowry given that the deceased had no serious ailment. Further based on section 304B of the Indian penal code and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act the High Court is not justified in granting bail. Further, it relied on the case of Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal [2009 1 SCC 678] decided by a two-judge Bench, wherein they observed, “while granting bail, particularly in serious cases like murder some reasons justifying the grant are necessary.” Relying on the same the Supreme Court held that order without reasons is contrary to the judicial process and the administration of criminal justice cannot be reduced to general observations. Further, it adjudicated that since the High Court granted bail without due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the law seeks the court to interfere in the matter.