Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jeetendra, was arrested on 5th January 2019 in connection with Crime No. 210/2012 registered at Police Station Chhatripura, Indore for offences under Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a complaint by the appellant's cousin and his son alleging that documents of a residential property furnished as a personal bond for the appellant's bail in a matrimonial case were forged. The police initially filed a closure report on 24th May 2013, but the Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation on 20th June 2018, leading to the appellant's arrest. The appellant was denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court on 22nd January 2019. A second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10th April 2019 with liberty to apply after examination of material witnesses. The police reinvestigated and submitted a second closure report on 2nd September 2019 stating no offence was committed. The appellant's third bail application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the second closure report had not been accepted by the trial court and that the appellant had not shown whether material witnesses were examined. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on 14th November 2019, granted interim bail. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and made the interim bail absolute, holding that the High Court ought to have considered that 'bail is rule and jail is exception' and that bail should not be granted or rejected mechanically. The Court noted the peculiar circumstances where closure reports were filed twice and the appellant had already spent over a year in custody.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Grant of Bail - 'Bail is rule and jail is exception' - Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200, 120B IPC - The appellant was in custody for over a year in a case where two closure reports were filed stating no offence was committed. The High Court rejected bail solely because the trial court had not accepted the second closure report. The Supreme Court held that bail should not be granted or rejected mechanically and that the High Court ought to have considered the peculiar circumstances. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was granted regular bail. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the third bail application of the appellant despite two closure reports and the appellant having spent over a year in custody.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16th September 2019, and made the interim bail order dated 14th November 2019 absolute. The appellant was directed to be released on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already furnished to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Law Points
- Bail is rule and jail is exception
- Bail should not be granted or rejected mechanically
- Liberty of a person is paramount
- Closure report not accepted by trial court is not a ground to deny bail
