Holding

The Court held that the bail may be cancelled for delay or tampering with evidence and directed the trial court to conclude the trial by December 2005, while noting that the High Court's failure to give reasons does not invalidate the bail order but warrants strict monitoring.

Summary

The appellant V.D. Chaudhary challenged a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to the accused (respondent No.2) for offences under Sections 304 and 338 IPC, alleging that the High Court had not given reasons and that the bail was being used to delay the trial. The case originated from a FIR alleging shooting that caused death, initially registered under Sections 304A and 338 IPC, but the charge‑sheet was later filed under Section 304 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could grant bail without reasons, whether the nature of the offence could be altered in the charge‑sheet, and whether bail could be cancelled under Sections 438 and 439 of the CrPC due to trial delay. It held that the bail could be cancelled if the accused caused delay or tampered with evidence, and directed the trial court to complete the trial by December 2005, imposing a duty on the accused to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was dismissed, with the direction that the trial court monitor the case and cancel bail if warranted.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail without recording reasons.
Whether the police may alter the nature of the offence in the charge‑sheet from 304A to 304 IPC.
Whether bail can be cancelled under Sections 438 and 439 of the CrPC on account of delay in trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to complete the trial within a specific time and impose conditions for bail cancellation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438, s. 439, s. 82, s. 83
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304, s. 304A, s. 338

Subjects

bailcancellation of bailtrial delaycharge sheetoffence alterationCrPCIPCreasoned ordertrial completion

Judgment

V.D. CHAUDHARY A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER I, 2005
B
[AR!JIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMR, JJ.]

Code oJCriminal Procedure, 1973:

Sections 438, 439-Bail-Cancel/ation of-Accused delaying and
prolonging the case-Held: Case fit for cancellation ofbail-However, Trial C
court directed to complete trial in four months as the prosecution evidence
was practically complete.

Offence-Nature ofoffence indicated in FIR found to be inappropriate-
Held : Police can indicate appropriate offence in the charge-sheet. D

A case was registered against the accused-respondent No. 2 under
Section 304A and 338 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed
under Section 304 and 338 IPC. Accused was granted bail for offence
under Section 304A, 338 IPC. He applied for bail for offence under
Section 304 and 338. High Court directed Magistrate to allow bail for E
added offence under Section 304 IPC.

In appeal to this Court, complainant contended that High Court
should not have accepted plea of accused that on bail, trial was prolonged.
F
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. High Court has not indicated any reason for grant for
bail. The charge sheet was filed alleging the commission of offence under
Section 304 IPC. Merely because at some earlier point of time the
investigation proceeded on the line as if offence punishable under Section G
304-A is committed yet there is no embargo on the police filing charge-
sheet indicating appropriate offence. [1098-BJ

Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176,
referred to. H
1095
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
. . . /
A 2. Though this is a fit case for C:ancellation for bail in view the or
infirmiti~ pointed out above c~nsideri~g the fa~t that pros~ut~~~ lidence
is practically dosed, the tri~l C~urt is d!rected to complete the trial by end
of December, 2005; Respondent No. 2 - accused directed· to fully co-
·.operate for completion of trial and not seek unnecessaryadjournments;
. I
B if the Court feels that he is taking advantage of the bail granted which
is being continued for nearly five years, and respondent no.
l is found to
be respons~ble for delay and/or tampering with evidence, the trial Court
shall direct cancellation of bail. (1099-D, Et F)

· . . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
C 1115 of2005.; . ·

From the Judgment and O~der dated 19.II.:i003 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl.M.A. No. 9682 of 2003.

D. P.K. Jain, Adv. for the Appellant.

K.B. Sinha, O.K. Goswami and Atishi Dipanlcar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E ARIJIT PASAYATt J.: Leave granted. i

. Informant calls in question legality of the order passed a teamed by
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to respondent No.2
as
(hereinafter referred' to "the 'accused').
F
Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

On 5.2.2000 comptaimmt lodged ·the First Inf~rmaticin Repdrt. It was
stated therein ·that when he and hiS son were att~nding a marriage party. the ·
G . responden·t-accused 'started fsrini shots from his gun. When he. was asked not
to do so, he.did no"t stop and continued th·e frring. The ~ppellant's son Saurabh .
received
..
injuri~s the
" du~ tO shots. .,
by
fir~d. the accuse&. and
....·
he died due.~ the. .
injuries. ·Initially, the police registered a case alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 304-A and 33&.of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
H."' short the ·xrC'). After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 304. ,
.. V.D. CHAUDHARY v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 1097
I •
and 338 IPC. Cognizance was taken and process was issued. Accused filed A
an application for being released o~ baiL By the impugned order bail has been
granted. · ·' ' · ./
-:·---- /··
-~ - /
. --·(
· According to the appellant. the accused was abscondmg fo~ about 2
years. His prayer' for bail was initially rejected. Non·bailable. warrant and B
process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Cruninal Procedure, 1973
(in short the 'Co'de') were issued. Subsequently he was arrested. It was.
submitted for the accused that he was already on bail for offence punishable
under Sections 304-A and 3381PC. On a reading ~fFIR and other documents
offence . under Section 304~A could' appear against the. ~ccused but C
"surreptitiously'' the same has been converted into offence under Section 304 .
IPC. With the following observations the High Court. granted bail by the
iinpugned order: ~' ' · . · .
" . . .
"It is said that even if allegations made in the FIR and other I
papers are ~ccepted to be t~e on _its face value, offence under Secti~n D ·I
· 304A and 338 IPC would appear against the accused applicant in
Case Crime NO.l07212002 State v. Dev Kumdr; P.S. Sadar Bazar
District Saharanpur. But surreptitiously it was converted into the
offence unde{ Section 304 IPC. It was said that the applicant was
. a~eady on bail for the offences under Section 304A and 338 IPC. · E
of
, Looking to the facts and circumstances the case, learned Magistrate
is directed also to accept fresh bail bonds for the added offence under
, Section 304 IPC in the Case No.270212002.

Application is disposed of accordingly.",
F
· Complain:Utt has filed this. ap~eal questioning the ~orr~Ctness of the
order passed. According to him, the High CoUrt should not have accepted plea
of accused that pol_ice surreptitiously changed the nature of the offence. It is
clearly contrary to facts. In fact. on completion of investigation it has been
noted that the applicable offence is Section 304 IPC-~d not 304-A. There G
was no surreptitious act involved and, therefore, grant of bail is not proper..
High Court has not even indicated any reason for grant of bail. It is pointed
out that taking advantage of the fact that the accused is on bail, there is an
effbrt to prolong the trial and hardly any progress has been made tho~gh
nearly 5 .years have elapsed. H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-accused submitted
that after considering the relevant factors bail has been granted.
-
We find that that the High Court has not indicated any reason for
grant of bail. As the facts go to show the charge sheet was filed alleging
the commission of offence under Section 304 IPC. Merely because at some
B
earlier point of time the investigation proceeded on the line as if offence
punishable under Section 304-A is committed yet there is no embargo on the
police filing charge-sheet indicating appropriate offence. At this juncture it
would be appropriate to take note of a decision of this Court in Omar Usman
Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176. In para 10, it was observed
c as follows:

"However, before concluding, we must advert to another aspect of
this case which has caused some concern to us. In the recent past,
we had several occasions to notice that the High Courts by recording
D the concessions shown by the counsel in the criminal proceedings
refrain from assigning any reason even in orders by which it reverses
the orders of the lower courts. In our opinion, this is not proper if
such orders are appealable, be it on the ground of concession shown
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties or on the ground that
assigning of elaborate reasons might prejudice the future trial before
E the lower courts. The High Court should not, unless for very good
reasons desist from indicating the grounds on which their orders are
based because when the matters are brought up in appeal, the c;ourt
of appeal has every reason to know the basis on which the impugned' 1
order has been made. It may be that while concurri~g)Vlth-'tlfe lower
F courts' order, it may not be necessaryJs>r-the said appellate court to
assign reasons but that is not so while reversing such orders of the
lower courts. It may be convenient for the said court to pass orders
without indicating the grounds or basis but it certainly is not
convenient for the court of appeal while considering the correctness
of such impugned orders. The reasons need not be very detailed or
G elaborate, lest it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties, but
must be sufficiently indicative of the process of reasoning leading
to the passing of the impugned order. The need for delivering a
reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be complied with
in all appealable orders. This Court in a somewhat similar situation
H has deprecated the practice of non-speaking orders in the case of
I
V.D. CHAUDHARY v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 1099

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AIR (1984) SC A
444)."

It was submitted by learned counsel for the accused that there is no allegation
of misuse ofliberty after grant of bail. Though the respondent No.2-accused's
stand is that the trial is at the verge of conclusion according to the appellant,
on some ground or the other the matter has been adjourned. As the quoted
B
impugned order go to show the High Court had not considered the application

- in its proper perspective. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent
No.2-accused that examination of all the witnesses is over and only the
investigation officer (in short the '10') is to be examined. It is submitted that
unnecessarily adjournments shall not be sought for and in any event the c
respondent No.2-accused shall fully cooperate for early completion of the
trial.

Though this is a fit case for cancellation of bail in view of the infirmities
pointed out above considering the fact that prosecution evidence is practically D
closed, we dispose of the appeal in the following terms:

(i) The trial Court would try to complete the trial by end of
December, 2005.

(ii) The respondent No.2-accused shaH fully co-operate for E
completion of trial. He shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
If the Court feels that he is taking advantage ofthe bail granted
which is being continued for nearly five years, it shall direct
cancellation of bail.

F
(iii) In case the trial is not completed within the stipulated time and
respondent no.2 is found to be responsible for delay and/or
tampering with evidence, the trial Court shall direct cancellation
of baiL

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. G

D.G. Appeal disposed of.