NDLI: Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Bail Victim-deceased suffered head injuries which resulted in his death s.439 Cr.p.c
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Complainant’s case was that the victim-deceased was his nephew and was assaulted by the respondents-accused while the deceased and his friend were on their way on a bike – Victim-deceased suffered head injuries which resulted in his death – Bail application of first respondent was allowed by High Court – Complainant- appellant filed instant appeal challenging the order of High Court enlarging the first respondent on bail – Held: A court assessing a plea of bail is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused and not conclude that the alleged crime was in fact committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubt – As per postmortem report, the victim-deceased was inflicted head injuries – Medical Board was of opinion that he died of head injuries – The statement of the friend of the deceased who was allegedly present with the deceased at the time of the incident was recorded under s.161 – The statement details the alleged incident and names all five accused, attributing to them the common intention to kill the deceased – It was stated that the accused thereafter drove away with the bike of the deceased – The order passed by the High Court failed to notice material facts and showed non-application of mind to the seriousness of the crime – High Court erred in not considering material relevant to the determination of whether the accused were to be enlarged on bail – Order of the High Court enlarging the accused on bail is erroneous and is set aside – Criminal Justice System – Bail. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Grant/ Rejection of bail – Determining factors – Held: The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important – No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail – At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused – That is a matter for trial – However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Where bail has been granted by a lower court – Scope of interference – Held: Appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail vis-a-vis application for the cancellation of bail – Determining factors – Held: The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail – The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail – The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified – On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. Judicial discipline: Reasoned/Speaking order while granting/ rejecting bail – It is a fundamental premise of open justice that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed – Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done – The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment – Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice – Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion – Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind – Bail.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1325
Petitioner	Mahipal
Respondent	Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.
SCR	[2019] 14 S.C.R. 529
Judgement Date	2019-12-05
Case Number	1843

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Mauji Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad and Anr.

Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Dasrath Vs. State of M.p.

Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

Lokesh Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Talat Sanvi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.

Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Mauji Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad and Anr.

Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Dasrath Vs. State of M.p.

Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

Lokesh Singh Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Talat Sanvi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.