“………if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term for ten years”:
However, subsection 2 thereof provides an escape route to him if, at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, it is observed that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he had committed a non-bailable offence and instead there were sufficient grounds for ‘further inquiry’ into his guilt. It is in this clearly demarcated statutory framework that an accused charged with an offence punishable with a term of 10 years or above has to make out a plea for his release on bail.
Criminal cases, invariably resting upon vastly distinguishable facts, do not admit space for hard and fast rules, empirically applicable with any degree of unanimity in every situation; in each case culpability of an accused is to be assessed, having regard to its own peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, determination of “sufficient grounds” in contradistinction to “further inquiry” has to be essentially assessed, with a fair degree of objectivity on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation; wording employed as “there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence” is an expression of higher of import and, thus, cannot be readily construed in the face of material, prima facie, constituting the offence complained. “Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial subsequently after evaluation of evidence1”. Similarly, “mere possibility of further inquiry which exists almost in every criminal case, is no ground for treating the matter as one under subsection 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C.2. It clearly manifests that expression “further inquiry” is a concept far from being confounded in subjectivity or to be founded upon denials or parallel stories by the defence; it requires a clear finding deducible from the record so as to be structured upon a visible/verifiable void, necessitating a future probe on the basis of material hitherto unavailable. With the available statement of the injured supported by the eye witnesses, “who cannot be stamped as false witnesses at bail stage”3, confirmed by medical evidence. The High Court has clearly misdirected itself in holding that respondent’s culpability warranted further inquiry. It cast away the very basis of the impugned order. Argument that exceptionally strong grounds are required to cancel bail even if granted erroneously, nonetheless, by a tribunal competent to extend such relief, does not hold much water inasmuch as erroneous application of law by itself presents a strong ground for its annulment. Strict adherence to law is a sine qua non to ensure predictability of consequences of a criminal act in any civilized legal system; it is imperative to ensure peace in the society through means and methods prescribed by law. It discourages criminal behaviours and at the same time strengthens people’s faith in the rule of law.
Observation by the High Court that nature of injury as “Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Badiah” being punishable under section 337 F(ii) brought respondents’ case outside the remit of prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code is also unsustainable, inasmuch as, the language employed in section 324 of the Code unambiguously provides a punishment that may extend to ten years imprisonment with a fine; it is in the event of hurt caused that in addition to the aforesaid an offender shall be liable to the punishment provided therefor, an amendment, contemplated to provide monetary compensation to the victim, in accord with the injunctions of Islam; nature of the injury suffered by the victim and punishment provided therefor, by itself, do not substitute or override primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault. Criminal petition is converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 07.07.2020 is set aside and bail granted to the respondents is cancelled.
Criminal Petition No.893 of 2020
Haji Shah Behram vs The State and others
0 Comments