LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not arrested during investigation and there is no apprehension of absconding.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Judgment Date: 6 February 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 102
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
Should an accused person be kept in jail if they were not arrested during the investigation and there is no apprehension of them absconding? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent criminal appeal, emphasizing that bail is the general rule and jail is an exception. The court underscored the importance of a humane approach when considering bail applications. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta.
Case Background
On 13th January 2016, the complainant filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Police Station Sahjanawa, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that Dataram Singh (the appellant) had cheated him of more than Rs. 37 lakhs. The FIR stated that offences under Sections 419, 420, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were committed. It was also alleged that the appellant had issued a cheque for Rs. 18 lakhs, which was later stopped, violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Following this, on 21st January 2016, the complainant filed a separate complaint case regarding the bounced cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint and issued summons to the appellant. The investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the appellant on or about 15th August 2016. The appellant was not arrested during the investigation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13th January 2016 | Complainant filed FIR against the appellant for cheating and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for violation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. |
| 21st January 2016 | Complainant filed a complaint case against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. |
| 15th August 2016 (approx) | Investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the appellant. |
| 7th February 2017 | Allahabad High Court declined to quash the FIR but granted two months to the appellant to appear before the trial judge. |
| 11th April 2017 | Appellant approached the Allahabad High Court for an extension of two weeks to appear before the trial judge. |
| 24th April 2017 | Appellant appeared before the trial judge and was taken into judicial custody. |
| 27th April 2017 | Trial judge rejected the appellant’s bail application. |
| 21st September 2017 | Allahabad High Court rejected the appellant’s bail application. |
| 23rd January 2018 | Supreme Court listed the appeal and impleaded the complainant as a party respondent. |
| 29th January 2018 | Supreme Court adjourned the matter to 2nd February 2018 as no reply was filed by the complainant. |
| 6th February 2018 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant, fearing arrest after the charge sheet was filed, approached the Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR. On 7th February 2017, the High Court refused to quash the FIR but granted the appellant two months to appear before the trial judge, implicitly directing that he should not be arrested during this period. On 11th April 2017, the appellant sought an additional two weeks from the High Court to appear before the trial judge, which was granted. Eventually, on 24th April 2017, the appellant appeared before the trial judge and was taken into judicial custody. The trial judge rejected the appellant’s bail application on 27th April 2017. A subsequent bail application was also rejected by the Allahabad High Court on 21st September 2017. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court also highlighted that granting bail is the general rule, while keeping a person in jail is an exception. The Court noted that while the grant or denial of bail is at the discretion of the judge, this discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Court also referred to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with bail in bailable offenses, and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have spent a certain period in custody.
Arguments
The complainant argued that the appellant had cheated him of a large sum of money and that the seriousness of the allegations warranted the denial of bail. The complainant also pointed to the appellant’s conduct of stopping payment on a cheque issued to him as further evidence of wrongdoing. The complainant supported the decisions of the trial judge and the Allahabad High Court to reject bail.
The appellant contended that he was not arrested during the investigation, and there was no apprehension that he would abscond or tamper with evidence. The appellant argued that the trial court and the High Court did not judiciously exercise their discretion while rejecting the bail application.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Seriousness of Allegations | Appellant cheated the complainant of a substantial amount. | Complainant |
| Appellant stopped payment on a cheque issued to the complainant. | Complainant | |
| The seriousness of the allegations warrants denial of bail. | Complainant | |
| No Apprehension of Absconding or Tampering | Appellant was not arrested during the investigation. | Appellant |
| No evidence that the appellant would abscond or tamper with evidence. | Appellant | |
| Trial court and High Court did not judiciously exercise discretion. | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant should be granted bail, considering that he was not arrested during the investigation, and there was no indication that he would abscond or tamper with evidence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether bail should be granted to the appellant | Bail was granted | The appellant was not arrested during the investigation, there was no apprehension of absconding and the trial court and High Court did not judiciously exercise discretion. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court cited the following cases:
- In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, Supreme Court of India – To highlight the issue of overcrowding in prisons.
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 2017 (13) SCALE 609, Supreme Court of India – To explain the historical background of bail.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Supreme Court of India – To emphasize that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
- Nagendra v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476, Calcutta High Court – To highlight the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
- Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356, Allahabad High Court – To emphasize that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
The following table illustrates how the authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the issue of overcrowding in prisons and the need for a humane approach in bail matters. |
| Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 2017 (13) SCALE 609, Supreme Court of India | Cited to provide the historical background of the concept of bail. |
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Supreme Court of India | Cited to reinforce that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment. |
| Nagendra v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476, Calcutta High Court | Cited to support the view that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. |
| Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356, Allahabad High Court | Cited to emphasize that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the appellant should be granted bail. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not arrested during the investigation and there was no indication that he would abscond or tamper with evidence.
The following table shows how the submissions made by the parties were treated by the Court:
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The appellant had cheated the complainant of a substantial amount. | The Court did not go into the correctness of the allegation, stating that it was a matter to be dealt with by the trial judge. |
| The appellant stopped payment on a cheque issued to the complainant. | The Court did not go into the correctness of the allegation, stating that it was a matter to be dealt with by the trial judge. |
| The seriousness of the allegations warrants denial of bail. | The Court held that despite the seriousness of allegations, the appellant should be granted bail as he was not arrested during the investigation and there was no apprehension of absconding. |
| Appellant was not arrested during the investigation. | The Court considered this a significant factor in favor of granting bail. |
| No evidence that the appellant would abscond or tamper with evidence. | The Court agreed with this and held that there was no apprehension that the appellant would abscond or hamper the trial. |
| Trial court and High Court did not judiciously exercise discretion. | The Court agreed that the trial court and High Court did not judiciously exercise their discretion while rejecting the bail application. |
The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658, Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the need for a humane approach to incarceration and to highlight the issue of overcrowding in prisons. |
| Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 2017 (13) SCALE 609, Supreme Court of India | Cited to provide the historical context of the concept of bail, emphasizing its age-old nature. |
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Supreme Court of India | Cited to reinforce the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. |
| Nagendra v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476, Calcutta High Court | Cited to support the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. |
| Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356, Allahabad High Court | Cited to emphasize that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was not arrested during the investigation. The Court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant would abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the general rule, while jail is an exception. The Court also highlighted the need for a humane approach in bail matters.
The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Appellant not arrested during investigation | 40% |
| No apprehension of absconding | 30% |
| Presumption of innocence | 20% |
| Humane approach in bail matters | 10% |
The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that since the appellant was not arrested during the investigation, and there was no apprehension that he would abscond or tamper with evidence, the trial judge and the High Court should have judiciously exercised their discretion and granted bail. The Court also emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence and that bail is the general rule, while jail is an exception.
The Court observed:
“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.”
“Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.”
“To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody.”
Key Takeaways
✓ Bail is the general rule, and jail is an exception.
✓ The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence.
✓ A humane approach is required when considering bail applications.
✓ If an accused is not arrested during the investigation and there is no apprehension of absconding, bail should generally be granted.
✓ Courts should judiciously exercise their discretion when deciding on bail applications.
This judgment reinforces the importance of personal liberty and the need to avoid unnecessary incarceration. It may lead to a more liberal approach in granting bail, especially in cases where the accused was not arrested during the investigation and there is no apprehension of absconding.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be granted bail on conditions that may be reasonably fixed by the trial judge.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that bail should be granted if the accused was not arrested during the investigation and there is no apprehension of absconding. This decision reinforces the existing legal position that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and emphasizes the importance of a humane approach in bail matters.
Conclusion
In Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. The Court held that since the appellant was not arrested during the investigation and there was no apprehension of absconding, bail should be granted. This judgment underscores the need for a humane approach in bail matters and reinforces the importance of personal liberty.