/2022 INSC 0201/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2022
KAMLA DEVI …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR        ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2022
KAMLA DEVI …...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR       ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA J. 
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant who is
the wife of the deceased, Sohan Singh, challenging orders dated
9 th  
September, 2019 and 17 th
  October, 2019, passed by the High
Court   of   Rajasthan   at   Jodhpur,   in   S.B.   Criminal   Miscellaneous
Bail   Application   Nos.   10473   of   2019   and   11546   of   2019
1

respectively, whereby  bail has been granted to the two accused,
namely,   Kishor   Singh   @   Kishan   Singh,   who   is   the   second
respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 and Kalu Singh
who   is   the   second   respondent   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   343   of
2022, in connection with FIR No.229 of 2019, registered at Police
Station Bhim, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.  
2. The facts in a nutshell are that appellant is the wife of the
deceased.   She   is   stated   to   be   the   person   who   lodged   a   missing
person   report   on   14 th
  May,   2019   stating   therein   that   the
deceased, Sohan Singh, aged 48 years, had on 13 th
  May 2019 left
their   residence   to   attend   the   marriage   ceremony   of   one   Sawai
Singh   and   was   expected   to   return   by   2.00   a.m.   the   next
morning. When the deceased did not return home, the appellant
assumed   that   he   may   have   continued   to   stay   at   Sawai   Singh’s
house.   However,   when   she   inquired   the   next   morning,   Sawai
Singh   informed   her   that   the   deceased   had   left   the   marriage
ceremony   the previous night itself. 
The   appellant   further   stated   in   the   missing   person   report
that she had a suspicion that the respondents­accused herein in
connivance   with   their   mother,   Teji   Devi,   had   in   some   manner
caused harm to her husband. 
2

3. That a First Information Report, being FIR No. 229 of 2019
dated   15 th
  May,   2019   came   to   be   lodged,   at   the   instance   of   the
son   of   the   deceased,   stating  that  the  deceased  was  returning  to
his  house  after attending  the  marriage function of Sawai  Singh,
the nephew of the deceased. The deceased was last seen outside
the   house   of   the   three   accused,   namely   Kishore   Singh   alias
Kishan Singh, Kalu Singh, who are the two respondents­accused
herein   and   Teji   Devi   who   is   the   mother   of   the   respondents­
accused.   That   three   passersby   had   disclosed   to   the   informant­
son   of   the   deceased   that   they   saw   the   accused   persons
quarrelling   with   the   deceased   on   the   night   of   his   death.   One
Nath Singh had informed the complainant that he had seen the
accused   quarrelling   with   the   deceased   outside   their   house   and
subsequently dragging the deceased into their house, wherein he
was assaulted and murdered. The dead body of the deceased was
dragged by the accused and thrown into a well nearby. 
4. Report   of   the   post­mortem   examination   conducted   on   15 th
May,   2019   recorded   that   the   deceased   had   died   as   a   result   of
“cardiopulmonary   arrest   due   asphyxia   and   venous   congestion.”
The   report   further   stated   that   the   deceased   was   drowned
following   his   death   and   that   the   hyoid   bone   of   the   deceased
appeared   to   be  fractured.   Final   report  as   to   cause   of   death   was
3

reserved,   to   be   finalised   based   on   the   report   of   the   forensic
science laboratory. 
5. A   charge   sheet   was   submitted   by   the   police   on   9 th
  July,
2019, against the three accused persons, before the Court of the
District   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan,   for   charges   under
Sections   302,   201   and   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (for
short,   the   “IPC”).   The   charge­sheet   has   recorded   that   on   the
night   of   the   incident,   the   deceased   had   at   about   2.00   a.m.
knocked   on   the   door   of   Teji   Devi.   She   informed   her   sons,   Kalu
Singh and Kishan Singh, the respondents­accused, of the same.
The   respondents­accused   who   were   on   the   roof   of   their   house,
jumped   down   and   attacked   the   deceased   with   lathis ,   with   an
intention to murder him. After the deceased was killed, all three
accused dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw it in a
well nearby, together with the lathi used to cause his death. 
The   matter   was   committed   to   the   Court   of   the   Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, Rajasthan for trial. 
6. The respondents­accused were arrested on 23 rd
 May, 2019,
in connection with FIR No. 229 of 2019 and were sent to judicial
custody. They remained  in judicial custody for a period of nearly
four   months   before   they   were   granted   bail   by   the   High   Court
vide  the impugned judgments. 
4

7. The   respondents­accused   preferred   separate   applications
seeking   bail,   under   Section   439   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   the   “CrPC”)   before   the   Court   of   the
Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan.   Bail
application   preferred   by   Kishan   Singh,   respondent­accused   in
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022 came to be rejected by an order
dated 09 th
 July, 2019, having regard to the gravity of the offences
alleged   and   the   prima­facie   evidence   on   record   as   regards   the
guilt of the accused. Subsequently, the bail application preferred
by   Kalu   Singh,   respondent­accused   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   343
of   2022   was   also   rejected   by   an   order   dated   05 th  
September,
2019. 
8. The   respondents­accused   preferred   separate   bail
applications   before   the   High   Court  and   by   the  impugned  orders
dated   9 th  
September,   2019   and   17 th
  October,   2019,   the   High
Court   has   enlarged   them   on   bail   in   the   case   arising   out   of   FIR
No. 229 of 2019. 
Being   aggrieved   by   the   grant   of   bail   to   the   respondents­
accused,   the   appellant­wife   of   the   deceased   has   preferred   the
instant appeals   before this Court. 
9. We have heard Sri. H.D. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   Sri.   Mehul   M.   Gupta,   learned
5

counsel for the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of
2022 and perused the material on record. 
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
Court has not properly exercised its discretionary power to grant
bail to the respondents­accused in a judicious manner. That the
High   Court,   in   the   impugned   orders,   had   failed   to   consider   the
severity  of  the   offences   alleged   against  the  respondents­accused
and   the   brutal   manner   in   which   the   offences   were   committed
and   attempted   to   be   concealed   by   throwing   the   body   of   the
deceased, together with the murder weapon, into a well. 
11. It   was   urged   that   the   trial   has   just   commenced   and
thirteen   witnesses   are   yet   to   be   examined;   therefore,   it   is
imperative   that   the   accused   remain   under   custody,   in   order   to
ensure   that   they   do   not   abscond   or   tamper   with   evidences   or
threaten   the   family   of   the   deceased   and/or   witnesses,   more   so
because,   the   accused   had   previously   attempted   to   cause
disappearance   of   evidence   by   disposing   off   the   body   of   the
deceased,   together   with   the   lathis   used   to   commit   murder,   by
throwing the same into a well.
12. That   following   the   grant   of   bail   by   the   High   Court,   the
accused,   Kishan   Singh   had   threatened   the   appellant   herein   of
dire consequences of her pursuing the criminal trial in connection
6

with case No. 299 of 2019. That a complaint under  Sections 107
and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. has also been filed in this regard. 
13. According   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant,   the
High   Court   has   not   assigned   reasons   for   the   grant   of   bail   to   the
respondents­accused   and   has   granted   bail   by   a   cryptic   order   de
hors   any reasoning, notwithstanding the fact that the accused, if
convicted   for   the   offences   alleged,   could   be   sentenced   to   life
imprisonment. 
14. In   order   to   buttress   his   submissions,   l earned   counsel   for
the   appellant   placed   reliance   on   the   following   decisions   of   this
Court:
i) In   Kalyan   Chandra   Sarkar   vs.   Rajesh   Ranjan   alias
Pappu   Yadav   &   Anr.   –   [(2004)   7   SCC   528],   this   Court
held   that   although   it   is   established   that   a   Court
considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed
examination   of   the   evidence   and   make   an   elaborate
discussion on the merits of the case, the Court is required
to   indicate   the   prima   facie   reasons   justifying   the   grant   of
bail. 
ii) Reference   was   made   to   Ash   Mohammad   vs.   Shiv   Raj
Singh   @   Lalla   Bahu   &   Anr.   –   [(2012)   9   SCC   446]   to
contend   that   the   period   of   custody   undergone   by   the
7

accused   seeking   bail,   was   a   relevant   factor   to   be
considered   while   deciding   an   application   for   bail.   That  in
the   instant   case,   the   accused   had   been   committed   to
custody   barely   four   months   before   they   were   released   on
bail   and   therefore,   the   impugned   orders   granting   bail   to
the accused are not tenable in the eyes of law. 
15. In   the  aforesaid   case,  this   Court  held   that  a  Court,   before
granting   bail   ought   to   consider   the   factors   which   would   justify
the   grant   of   bail,   in   juxtaposition   with   the   societal   concern
involved in releasing an accused on bail. 
(i) In   State   through   C.B.I   vs.   Amaramani   Tripathi   –
[(2005)  8  SCC  21] , this  Court held  that a Court granting
bail   to   an   accused,   must   apply   its   mind   and   go   into   the
merits   and   evidence   on   record   and   determine   whether   a
prima­facie   case   was   established   against   the   accused.   It
was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was
also   a   relevant   consideration.     Based   on   such
observations,   this   Court   set   aside   an   order   of   the   High
Court   whereby   bail   had   been   granted   to   the   accused
therein,   having   no   regard   to   the   material   placed   by   the
prosecution   therein,   which   indicated   that   the   accused
had, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course
8

of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence,
intimidate   or   create   obstacles   in   the   path   of   investigation
officers and derail the case.
16. In the above context, it was contended by Sri H.D. Thanvi,
learned counsel for the appellant that it was highly probable that
the   accused   herein,   if   not   remanded   to   custody   on   cancellation
of  their   bail  bonds,   are   likely   to   interfere   with  the   investigation,
abscond   or   even   cause   harm   to   the   appellant   herein   and   the
informant.  It was urged that the grant of bail to the respondents­
accused   was   contrary   to   the   settled   principles   of   law   and
judgments   of   this   Court.   It   was   submitted   on   behalf   of   the
appellant­wife of the deceased that these appeals may be allowed
by setting aside the impugned orders. 
17. Per   contra,   Sri.   Mehul   M.   Gupta,   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent   accused   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.342   of   2022
submitted   that   the   impugned   orders   do   not   suffer   from   any
infirmity   warranting   interference   by   this   Court.   That   the
appellant   and   her   son,   the   informant ,   have   narrated   an   untrue
version of events in order to falsely implicate the accused. 
18. Referring   to   the   contents   of   the   post­mortem   report   of   the
deceased   dated   15 th
  May,   2019,   it   was   contended   that   the
deceased   had   died   as   a   result   of   suffering   a   sudden   cardio
9

pulmonary arrest and therefore, the death of the deceased could
not   be   attributed   to   an   assault   by   the   accused.   It   was   further
submitted   that,   since   the   final   report   as   to   the   cause   of   death
was   reserved   and   was   to   be   finalised   based   on   the   forensic
laboratory reports, it was rather premature to conclude that the
accused had any role to play in the death of the deceased. 
19. The   allegation   that   accused­Kishan   Singh,   after   he   was
enlarged   on   bail   threatened   the   appellant   herein,   has   been
denied. It has been submitted in this regard that such allegation
and the complaint registered by the appellant in connection with
such   allegation   were   merely   attempts   to   further   implicate   the
accused, falsely. 
20. It was next urged that the High Court was not required to
conduct an elaborate discussion as to the merits of the case and
the evidence on record, at a pre­trial stage. That such exercise, if
undertaken by the High Court while deciding a bail application,
would   prejudice   fair   trial.   That   the   accused   have   no   criminal
antecedents and have been cooperating with the investigation of
the   case.   Therefore,   the   impugned   orders   granting   bail   to   the
accused do not call for interference by this Court. 
21. Having   regard   to   the   contention   of   Sri.   H.D.   Thanvi,
learned   counsel   for   the   appellant,   that   the   impugned   orders   of
10

the   High   Court   whereby   bail   was   granted   to   the   respondents­
accused,   are   bereft   of   any   reasoning   and   that   such   orders   are
casual   and   cryptic,   we   extract,   hereinunder,   those   portions   of
the   impugned   orders   dated   9 th  
September,   2019   and   17 th
October,   2019   passed   by   the   High   Court,   which   records   the
“reasoning” of the High Court for granting bail: 
Impugned order dated 09    th
    September, 2019
“Having   regard   to   the   totality   of   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   without   expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it
just   and   proper   to   grant   bail   to   the   accused
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this bail application filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed
that   petitioner   Kishore   Singh   @   Kishan   Singh
S/o   Sh.   Dungar   Singh   Rawat   shall   be   released
on   bail   in   connection   with  FIR  No.229/2019   of
Police   Station   Bhim,   District   Rajsamand
provided he executes a personal bond in a sum
of   Rs.50,000/­   with   two   sound   and   solvent
sureties of Rs.25,000/­ each to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court  for  his appearance before
that   Court   on   each   and   every   date   of   hearing
and   whenever   called   upon   to   do   so   till   the
completion of the trial.” 
Impugned order dated 17    th
    October, 2019
“Having   regard   to   the   totality   of   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   without   expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it
just   and   proper   to   grant   bail   to   the   accused
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this bail application filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed
that   petitioner   Kalu   Singh   S/o   Sh.   Dungar
11

Singh   Rawat   shall   be   released   on   bail   in
connection   with   FIR   No.229/2019   of   Police
Station Bheem, District Rajsamand provided he
executes   a   personal   bond   in   a   sum   of
Rs.50,000/­   with   two   sound   and   solvent
sureties of Rs.25,000/­ each to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court  for  his appearance before
that   Court   on   each   and   every   date   of   hearing
and   whenever   called   upon   to   do   so   till   the
completion of the trial.” 
22. This   Court   has,   on   several   occasions   has   discussed   the
factors   to   be   considered   by   a   Court   while   deciding   a   bail
application. The primary considerations which must be placed at
balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) the seriousness of
the offence; (ii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
(iii)   the   impact   of   release   of   the   accused   on   the   prosecution
witnesses;     (iv)   likelihood   of   the   accused   tampering   with
evidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that
if   a   Court   takes   into   account   such   factors   in   deciding   a   bail
application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted
from   a   judicious   exercise   of   its   discretion,   vide   Gudikanti
Narasimhulu   &   Ors.   vs.   Public   Prosecutor,   High   Court   of
Andhra  Pradesh ­  [(1978)  1   SCC   240]   ;   Prahlad  Singh   Bhati
vs.   NCT   of   Delhi   &   Ors .   –   [(2001)   4   SCC   280   ;   Anil   Kumar
Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ­  [(2018) 12 SCC 129] . 
12

23. This   Court  has   also  ruled   that  an  order   granting   bail  in   a
mechanical   manner,   without   recording   reasons,   would   suffer
from   the   vice   of   non­application   of   mind,   rendering   it   illegal,
vide  Ram  Govind  Upadhyay  vs.  Sudarshan  Singh ­  [(2002)  3
SCC 598  ;  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan  ( supra )
;   Prasanta   Kumar   Sarkar   vs.   Ashis   Chaterjee   –   [(2010)   14
SCC   496]   ;   Ramesh   Bhawan   Rathod   vs.   Voshanbhai
Hirabhai   Makwana   (Koli)   &   Ors .   –   [(2021)   6   SCC   230   ;
Brijmani   Devi   vs.   Pappu   Kumar   &   Anr .   –   Criminal   Appeal
No. 1663 of 2021 [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1280] . 
24. Reference may also be had to  recent decisions of this very
Bench   in   Manoj   Kumar   Khokhar   vs.   State   of   Rajasthan   &
Anr .,   Criminal   Appeal   No.   36   of  2022   [2022   SCC   OnLine  SC
30]   and   Jaibunisha   vs.   Meharban   &   Anr .,   Criminal   Appeal
77 of 2022 [2022 SCC OnLine SC 58] , wherein, on engaging in
an   elaborate   discussion   of   the   case   law   cited   supra   and   after
duly   acknowledging   that   liberty   of   individual   is   an   invaluable
right, we have held that an order granting bail to an accused, if
passed in a casual and cryptic manner,  de hors  reasoning which
would   validate  the  grant  of  bail,  is   liable  to   be  set aside  by   this
13

Court   while   exercising   jurisdiction   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution of India. 
25. The   Latin   maxim   “ cessante   ratione   legis   cessat   ipsa   lex ”
meaning “reason is  the soul of the law, and when the reason of
any   particular   law   ceases,   so   does   the   law   itself,”   is   also
apposite.
26. We   have   extracted   the   relevant   portions   of   the   impugned
order   above.   At   the   outset,   we   observe   that   the   extracted
portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of
the  High court while  granting  bail. As  noted  from  the  aforecited
judgments,   it   is   not   necessary   for   a   Court   to   give   elaborate
reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the
initial   stage   and   the   allegations   of   the   offences   by   the   accused
would   not   have   been   crystalised   as   such.   There   cannot   be
elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is
one   that   would   result   in   a   conviction   or,   by   contrast,   in   an
acquittal   while   passing   an   order   on   an   application   for   grant   of
bail.   However,   the   Court   deciding   a   bail   application   cannot
completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case
such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the
punishment   if   the   allegations   are   proved   beyond   reasonable
doubt   which   would   result   in   a   conviction;   reasonable
14

apprehension  of  the  witnesses  being   influenced  by  the  accused;
tampering   of   the   evidence;   the   frivolity   in   the   case   of   the
prosecution;   criminal   antecedents   of   the   accused;   and   a   prima­
facie   satisfaction   of   the   Court   in   support   of   the   charge   against
the accused. 
27. In   view  of  the  aforesaid  discussion,  we   shall  now  consider
the   facts   of   the   present   case.   The   allegations   against
respondents­   accused   as   well   as   the   contentions   raised   at   the
Bar   have   been   narrated   supra .  On  a  consideration   of   the   same,
the following aspects of the case would emerge: 
a) The allegations against the respondents­accused are under
Section   302,   201   and   34   of   the   IPC,   with   regard   to   the
murder   of   Sohan   Singh,   husband   of   the   appellant   herein.
The   offences   alleged   against   the   respondents­accused   are
of grave nature. 
b) The accusation against the accused is that they committed
the   offence   of   murder   on   the   deceased   and   attempted   to
clandestinely dispose off the dead body of the deceased and
the   lathis   used   to   attack   him,   by   throwing   the   same   in   a
well nearby so as to conceal the offence.  
c) It is also the case of the appellant that following the release
of   accused­Kishan   Singh   on   bail,   he   had   threatened   the
15

appellant   herein   with   dire   consequences   for   pursuing   the
criminal   trial   in   connection   with   FIR   No.   299   of   2019.   A
complaint   in   this   regard   also   came   to   be   filed   against
Kishan   Singh.   Thus,   the   possibility   of   the   accused
threatening   or   otherwise   influencing   the   witnesses,   if   on
bail, cannot be ruled out. 
d) As   regards   the   contention   advanced   on   behalf   of   the
respondents­accused   to   the   effect   that   the   deceased   had
died   as   a   result   of   suffering   a   sudden   cardio   pulmonary
arrest   and   therefore,   the   death   of   the   deceased   could   not
be   attributed   to   an   assault   by   the   accused,   we   observe,
while   not   expressing   any   opinion   on   merits   of   the   case,
that,   the   post­mortem   report   when   considered   in   its
entirety   is   suggestive   of   the   fact   that   the   deceased   was
murdered.   Although   the   cause   of   death   is   recorded   as
“ cardio   pulmonary   arrest   due   asphyxia   and   venous
congestion,” the hyoid bone of the deceased appeared to be
fractured.   Therefore,   we   are   not   inclined   to   hold   that   the
prosecution   has   not   established   a   prima   facie   case   as   to
the guilt of the accused. We are therefore, not of the  prima
facie   opinion   that   the   subject  FIR   was   filed   with   a   view  to
implicate the accused.  
16

e) The bail applications preferred by the respondents­accused
under   Section   439   of   the   CrPC   before   the   Additional
Sessions   Judge,   Rajsamand,   Rajasthan   were   rejected,
having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged. 
f) The   High   Court   of   Rajasthan,   in   the   impugned   orders
dated   9 th  
September, 2019 and 17 th
  October, 2019 has  not
considered   the   aforestated   aspects   of   the   case   in   the
context of the grant of bail. 
28. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in
light of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is a fit
case   for   the   grant  of   bail   to   the   respondents­accused,   given   the
seriousness of the allegations against them. 
29. As   noted   in   Gurcharan   Singh   vs.   State   (Delhi   Admn.)  
[1978   CriLJ   129],   when   bail   has   been   granted   to   an   accused,
the   State   may,   if   new   circumstances   have   arisen   following   the
grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation
of   bail   under   section   439   (2)   of   the   CrPC.   However,   if   no   new
circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may
prefer   an   appeal   against   the   order   granting   bail,   on   the   ground
that   the   same   is   perverse   or   illegal   or   has   been   arrived   at   by
ignoring   material   aspects   which   establish   a   prima­facie   case
17

against   the   accused.   Strangely,   the   State   of   Rajasthan   has   not
filed any appeal against the impugned orders herein.
While we are conscious of the fact that a Court considering
the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on
the   merits   of   the   case,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the   High   Court
while   passing   the   impugned   orders   has   not   taken   into   account
even   a   single   material   aspect   of   the   case.   The   High   Court   has
granted   bail   to   the   respondents­accused   by   passing   a   very
cryptic and casual order,   de hors   cogent reasoning.   We find that
the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail
filed   by   the   respondents   accused.   Hence   the   impugned   orders
dated   9 th  
September, 2019 and 17 th
  October, 2019   are set aside.
The appeals are allowed. 
30. The   respondents­accused   are   on   bail.   Their   bail   bonds
stand   cancelled   and   they   are   directed   to   surrender   before   the
concerned   jail   authorities   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   from
today. 
.................................J. 
(M.R. SHAH)
 
.................................J. 
(B.V. NAGARATHNA) 
NEW DELHI; 
11 th
 MARCH, 2022. 
18