‘Give Complete Details Of Criminal Antecedents Of Applicants In Bail Orders’: Allahabad High Court Directs Trial Courts

Tag: 上海夜生活DTE

first_imgNews Updates’Give Complete Details Of Criminal Antecedents Of Applicants In Bail Orders’: Allahabad High Court Directs Trial Courts Sparsh Upadhyay20 Dec 2020 8:41 PMShare This – xThe Allahabad High Court on Monday (14th December) directed the Courts below to “give a complete details of the criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them or record the fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there are none.” The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal further observed, “Although the criminal antecedents of the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Allahabad High Court on Monday (14th December) directed the Courts below to “give a complete details of the criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them or record the fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there are none.” The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal further observed, “Although the criminal antecedents of the accused are not the sole and decisive factor for decision of bail applications but the same needs to be considered while deciding an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as per the legislative mandate of Section 437 Cr.P.C.” The matter before the Court The Bench was hearing a regular bail application filed by the applicant Uday Pratap, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 I.P.C. The Counsel for the State argued that as per C.C.T.V. footage, the applicant (Uday Pratap) was seen moving out from the place where the deceased and other co-accused persons were consuming liquor. It was submitted that the applicant was also seen together with the deceased having liquor by Dinesh, the younger brother of the deceased. It was also argued that all the accused persons in a clandestine manner gave poisonous substance to the deceased as a result of which he died, which also gets fortified from the report of chemical analyst from which poison has been found in the viscera. Importantly, the A.G.A. refuted the averment of criminal antecedents of the applicant and argued that the said averment is a false averment made in the affidavit filed in support of bail application. He argued that the applicant is involved in seven other criminal cases and even history sheet has been opened. The details of involvement of the applicant in seven other criminal cases were placed before the Court. Court’s observations After having heard Counsels for the parties and perusing the records, the Court said, “It is apparent that criminal antecedents of the applicant have not been disclosed.” In view of the fact that in the viscera report, presence of Organo Chloro insecticide and Ethyl Alcohol poison was found and long criminal antecedents of the applicant, the Court did not think it to be a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Further, the Court said, “Not only in this case but in many other cases it is seen that there is an averment made that the applicant/accused is not involved in any other criminal case before this Court. The order rejecting bail by the courts below is silent about the criminal antecedents of the applicant/accused but on the basis of instructions of learned Additional Government Advocate of this Court or on the basis of instruction of learned counsels for the first informant; it transpires that the applicant/accused has previous criminal history.” The Court also said, “When the learned counsels are countered with the same it becomes embarrassing for them and is also an impediment in deciding the said bail application due to the non-disclosure of the criminal history of the accused.” Thus, the Court directed the courts below in the State of Uttar Pradesh “to attend the issue of criminal antecedent(s) of accused persons while deciding bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and give a complete detail of the criminal antecedent(s), if any, of the applicant(s)/accused before them or record the fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there are none.” The Registrar General was directed to ensure compliance of the order “in its true spirit and submit a report of compliance before this Court by 29.1.2021.” The matter has been listed for further hearing on 29th January 2021 for further orders. In related news, the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday (25th November) directed all the Trial Courts in the State to give the complete details of the antecedents (of the Bail Applicant), if any, and also record that there are no antecedents of the accused person in case of none being there. The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati issued the above-said direction while hearing the Bail Application of an Accused who had no criminal antecedents. Case title – Uday Pratap @ Dau v. State of U.P. [Criminal Misc. Bail application No. – 43160 of 2020] Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more


Tag: 上海夜生活DTE

first_imgTop StoriesQuality Of Reasons Matters The Most: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Accused In Dowry Death Case LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK7 April 2021 7:06 AMShare This – xWhile the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside an Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a man accused in a dowry death case.In this case, after recording the rival submissions, the High Court allowed the bail application, observing thus: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginWhile the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside an Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a man accused in a dowry death case.In this case, after recording the rival submissions, the High Court allowed the bail application, observing thus: “Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.”In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that this does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. It said:”The sentence which we have extracted earlier contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) “the entire facts and circumstances of the case”; (ii) “submissions of learned Counsel for the parties”; (iii) “the nature of offence”; (iv) “evidence”; and (v) “complicity of accused”. This is followed by an observation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail”, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. This does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order. “The court further added that the High Court did not consider the seriousness of the alleged offence, where a woman has met an unnatural end within a year of marriage. “The seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop 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 are specific allegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry”, it added.”An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. It is time that such a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice.”, the bench observed while setting aside the High Court orderCase: Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav [Crl.A.377/2021]Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR ShahCounsel: Adv Vishal Yadav, Sr. Adv  Ravinder Singh, Adv Sanjay JainCitation: LL 2021 SC 200Click here to Read/Download JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more