SONU versus SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER on 5 April 2021

78

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 78

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 7 S.C.R. 78

[2021] 7 S.C.R.

SONU

A

v.

SONU YADAV AND ANOTHER

(Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2021)

B

APRIL 05, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Unnatural deathof married woman within a year of marriage – Charge-sheet againstCher husband (first respondent) for offences u/ss.498-A and 304-BIPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Bail application offirst respondent rejected by Sessions Judge – Bail application u/s.439 CrPC before High Court – High Court allowed the application– Justification of – Held: In view of the provisions of s.304-B IPC,Das well as the presumption arising u/s.113-B of Evidence Act, theHigh Court, on facts, was clearly not justified in granting bail –Prima facie, there were serious allegations in the FIR in regard toharassment suffered by deceased in close proximity to her deathover demands for dowry by the accused – Submission in support ofbail as recorded by High Court was that deceased was undergoingEtreatment for a mental illness – Medical prescription, submittedbefore the Court, however, prima facie indicates that there was noserious ailment – Also, the order of High Court did not contain thekind of reasoning expected of a judicial order – The High Courtmerely recorded the rival submissions, and, without any evaluationFof the same, proceeded to grant bail without due application ofmind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisionsof the law – Grant of bail to first respondent accordingly stand setaside – Bail – IPC – ss.498-A and 304B – Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 – ss.3 and 4.GBail – Evaluation of rival submissions – Requirement of –Held: The rival submissions have to be evaluated and not merelyrecorded by the court – While it is true that at the time of consideringan application for bail, the High Court would not be required tolaunch into a detailed enquiry into the facts which have to bedetermined in the course of trial, equally an application of mind byH

the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary – Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439.

Bail – Reasoned bail orders – Necessity of – Held: An orderwithout reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guidethe judicial process – While the reasons may be brief, it is the qualityof the reasons which matters the most – That there has been ajudicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding anapplication u/s.439 CrPC must emerge from the quality of thereasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail – Reasonsin support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial processwhich brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice –Judgment / Order – Reasoned order – Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s. 439 – Administration of Justice.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. The submission in support of bail recorded bythe High Court was that the sister of the appellant was undergoingtreatment for a mental illness. The medical prescription,submitted before the Court, however, would prima facie indicatethat there was no serious ailment. Prima facie, there are seriousallegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered bythe deceased in close proximity to her death over demands fordowry by the accused. In view of the provisions of Section 304-Bof the Indian Penal Code, as well as the presumption which arisesunder Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the High Court wasclearly not justified in granting bail. [Para 9][83-G, H; 84-A-B]

2.1. The order of the High Court granting bail containsabsolutely no reasons at all. While it is true that at the time ofconsidering an application for bail the High Court would not berequired to launch into a detailed enquiry into the facts whichhave to be determined in the course of trial, equally an applicationof mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary.In the present case, the High Court has merely recorded thesubmissions and proceeded to grant bail without any evaluationof the rival submissions. [Para 10][84-B-D]

2.2. The lone sentence in the order of the High Court,intending to display some semblance of reasoning for justifying ABC

DE

F

G

H

80SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 7 S.C.R.

Athe grant of bail, contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) “the entirefacts and circumstances of the case”; (ii) “submissions of learnedCounsel for the parties”; (iii) “the nature of offence”; (iv)“evidence”; and (v) “complicity of accused”. This is followed byan observation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail”,“without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. ThisBdoes not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of ajudicial order. The High Court cannot be oblivious, in a case suchas the present, of the seriousness of the alleged offence, where awoman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. Theseriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in theCbackdrop 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 arespecific allegations of harassment against the accused on theground of dowry. An order without reasons is fundamentallycontrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. TheDadministration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot bereduced to a mantra containing a recitation of generalobservations. That there has been a judicious application of mindby the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 ofthe CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which isEembodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may bebrief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. Thatis because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thoughtprocess of a trained judicial mind. Reasons in support of ordersgranting bail comport with a judicial process which bringscredibility to the administration of criminal justice. [Para 11]F[84-F-H; 85-A-E]

3. The order of the High Court granting bail without dueapplication of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances aswell to the provisions of the law requires the interference of thisCourt. The grant of bail to the first respondent shall accordinglyGstand set aside. [Paras 12, 13][85-E-F]

Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal(2009) 1 SCC 678: [2008] 17 SCR 1348 –relied to.

H

Case Law Reference

[2008] 17 SCR 1348relied toPara 10

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2021

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17334of 2020.

Vishal Yadav, Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Ajay Pal, Advs. for theAppellant.

Ravindra Singh, Sr. Adv., Raman Yadav, Syed Mehdi Imam, AnkitGoel, Sanjay Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 December2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inCriminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 17334 of 2020.

3 A First Information Report, FIR No 0076 of 2019, was registeredon 9 February 2019 at Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawahfor offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1861. The FirstInformation Report was registered on the complaint of the appellant,who is the brother of the deceased. The marriage between the deceasedand the first respondent was solemnized on 5 July 2018. It has beenalleged in the FIR that at the time of the marriage, a cash amount of Rs15 lakhs, a motor vehicle and other household articles were provided indowry. It has been alleged that the first respondent and his parents werenot satisfied with the amount of dowry and an amount of Rs 5 lakhs wasbeing demanded. On 8 February 2019, it has been alleged that at about8.45 pm, a phone call was received from a cell phone from the firstrespondent when the appellant was informed that if he wished to see hissister alive, an amount of Rs 5 lakhs should be arranged. It has beenalleged that the phone was then disconnected. However, at 1.30 am on9 February 2019, the appellant is alleged to have received a phone callrequiring him to take away the dead body of his sister. The FIR records A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Athat the appellant together with the members of the family went to Etawahand 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 districthospital. On these allegations, the First Information Report came to beregistered at 11.49 am on 9 February 2019.

B4. A charge-sheet has been submitted on 3 May 2019 for offencesalleged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code andSections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail application filedby the first respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 18 June2019. The High Court was thereafter moved in a bail application underSection 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. After recording theCrival 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 viewthe nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is ofDthe view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bailapplication is allowed.”

5. We have heard Mr Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant, Mr Ravinder Singh, learned senior counsel forthe first respondent and Mr Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the State ofEUttar Pradesh have appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by thisCourt on 27 January 2021.

6. Mr Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant submits that (i) the High Court has adduced absolutely noreasons for the grant of bail; (ii) the submission before the High Courtthat the deceased was suffering from a mental illness is patently falseFand the so called medical prescription dated 1 January 2019 was issuedby an Ayurvedic doctor about a month before the date of the incident on1 January 2019; (iii) ex facie, the medical prescription would indicatethat the deceased was not undergoing treatment for a mental condition;(iv) the death has taken place within a year of the marriage; and (v)Ghaving regard to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian PenalCode and the presumptions which arise under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, there was no justification for the High Court togrant bail at the present stage.

7. On the other hand, Mr Ravindra Singh, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the first respondent has supported the view ofH

the High Court, on the ground that (i) the High Court has desisted fromexpressing any view on the merits which may impede the course of thetrial; (ii) the statements which have been recorded during investigationwould indicate that the death was as a result of hanging; (iii) there is nocomplicity whatsoever of the first respondent; (iv) hence, it would beappropriate for this Court not to interfere with the order granting bail tothe first respondent.

8. Mr Sanjay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theState of UP has submitted that an attempt has been made on behalf ofthe accused to improve upon the case in the course of the pleadings. Hesought to demonstrate this by making a reference to paragraph 21 of thebail application filed before the High Court, in which it was denied thatthe mobile number from which the informant was alleged to havereceived the phone call demanding additional dowry was in any mannerassociated with the family or the near relatives of the accused. On theother hand, it has been pointed out that in paragraph 7 of the counteraffidavit before this court, the specific case of the first respondent isthat on 8 February 2019, when he was away from home to attend amarriage of a close friend, he had received a call at 8.45 pm from thesame mobile number which is referred to in the FIR to the effect that hisspouse has committed suicide. Hence, it has been submitted that therehas been a clear attempt to improve upon the case which was set up inthe application for bail filed before the High Court.

9. At the present stage, certain basic aspects need to be noted. Itis not in dispute that the first respondent was married to the sister of theappellant on 5 July 2018. She died on 8 February 2019, within a year ofthe marriage. There are specific allegations in the First Information Reportin regard to the demand of dowry, as well as in regard to a phone callbeing received from the accused in close proximity to the death of thesister of the appellant when a demand for additional amounts of moneywas made. The submission in support of bail recorded by the High Courtwas that the sister of the appellant was undergoing treatment for a mentalillness. In this context, it is material to note that in paragraph 22 of thebail application, the plea was that the deceased was “suffering fromsevere 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 themedical prescription, which has been submitted before this Court, wouldprima facie indicate that there was no serious ailment. The medicalprescription of the Ayurvedic doctor and the remedies prescribed belie AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asuch a claim. Prima facie, there are serious allegations in the FIR inregard to the harassment suffered by the deceased in close proximity toher death over demands for dowry by the accused. In view of theprovisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as thepresumption which arises under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, theHigh Court was clearly not justified in granting bail.B

10. The order of the High Court granting bail contains absolutelyno reasons at all. While it is true that at the time of considering anapplication for bail the High Court would not be required to launch into adetailed enquiry into the facts which have to be determined in the courseof trial, equally an application of mind by the High Court to the rivalCsubmissions is necessary. The High Court has merely recorded thesubmissions and in the extract which we have reproduced earlierproceeded to grant bail without any evaluation of the rival submissions.In this context, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the principle whichhas been formulated in the two-Judge Bench decision of this Court inDBrij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal (2009) 1 SCC678 where the Court observed thus:

“It is now a settled law that the complainant can always questionthe order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed. It isnot as if once a bail is granted by any court, the only way is to getit cancelled on account of its misuse. The bail order can be testedEon merit also. In our opinion, therefore, the complainant couldquestion the merits of the order granting bail. However, we findfrom the order that no reasons were given by the learned Judgewhile granting the bail and it seems to have been granted almostmechanically without considering the pros and cons of the matter.FWhile granting bail, particularly in serious cases like murder somereasons justifying the grant are necessary.”

11. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have extracted the lonesentence in the order of the High Court which is intended to displaysome semblance of reasoning for justifying the grant of bail. The sentenceGwhich we have extracted earlier contains an omnibus amalgam of (i)“the entire facts and circumstances of the case”; (ii) “submissions oflearned Counsel for the parties”; (iii) “the nature of offence”; (iv)“evidence”; and (v) “complicity of accused”. This is followed by anobservation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail”, “withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. This does not constituteH

the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. The HighCourt cannot be oblivious, in a case such as the present, of the seriousnessof the alleged offence, where a woman has met an unnatural end withina year of marriage. The seriousness of the alleged offence has to beevaluated in the backdrop of the allegation that she was being harassedfor dowry; and that a telephone call was received from the accused inclose-proximity to the time of death, making a demand. There are specificallegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry.An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms whichguide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by theHigh Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation ofgeneral observations. That there has been a judicious application ofmind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 ofthe CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which isembodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it isthe quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because thereasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicialmind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasonsindicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becomingincreasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. It is time thatsuch a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of ordersgranting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility tothe administration of criminal justice.

12. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the order ofthe High Court granting bail without due application of mind to the relevantfacts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law requires theinterference of this Court.

13. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Courtdated 1 December 2020 granting bail to the first respondent. The grantof bail to the first respondent shall accordingly stand set aside and thefirst respondent shall surrender forthwith. We, however, clarify that theobservations contained in the present order are confined to the issue ofbail and shall not affect the merits of the trial.

14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H