- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAHUL GUPTA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Factual and Procedural Background
The case arises from FIR No. 474/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the accused (private respondents) were chargesheeted for these offences.
By order dated 18.07.2022, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2363/2022 and S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 10068/2022, directed that the accused be enlarged on bail. The High Court’s order was brief, indicating principally that the trial might take a long time to conclude.
The original complainant/informant filed the present appeals challenging the High Court’s bail order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court’s non-speaking order granting bail—without examining the material forming part of the chargesheet and without considering the seriousness of the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, and 120-B IPC—was sustainable.
- Whether the bail orders should be quashed and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail applications after perusing the investigation materials.
Arguments of the Parties
Accused’s Counsel
- Submitted that the wife of accused Sunil Gupta is suffering from brain haemorrhage, suggesting that interim bail and/or bail on this medical ground may be sought.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that the accused had already been chargesheeted after investigation for serious offences including Section 302 IPC. In such circumstances, the High Court was required to consider the material collected during the investigation—now part of the chargesheet—when deciding whether bail was appropriate.
The Court noted that the High Court’s order was non-speaking and rested essentially on the observation that the trial might take a long time. The quoted reasoning in the High Court’s order was: “Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.”
According to the Court, in a case involving Section 302 IPC (homicide), the High Court should have taken into account the seriousness of the allegations and the materials collected during investigation before granting bail. The absence of such consideration rendered the High Court’s order unsustainable in law.
Consequently, the Court held that the impugned bail order must be quashed and the matter remitted to the High Court to decide the bail applications afresh, explicitly directing that the High Court peruse and consider the investigation materials and other relevant factors that must inform a bail determination.
Regarding the submission that the wife of one accused (Sunil Gupta) is suffering from brain haemorrhage, the Court clarified that it would be open to the accused to seek interim bail and/or bail on that ground, which the High Court may consider in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeals are allowed; the impugned High Court order granting bail is quashed and set aside. The original accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail authority within 10 days. After surrender, the High Court shall decide and dispose of the bail application(s) afresh, at the earliest, in accordance with law and on their own merits, after perusing the material/evidence collected during the investigation and considering the relevant aspects for bail.
IMPLICATIONS: The immediate effect is that the previously granted bail stands cancelled; the accused must surrender within the specified period, and their bail applications will be reconsidered by the High Court on a proper appraisal of the chargesheet and other relevant factors. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or establish a new precedent.
M.R. Shah, J.:— Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicate for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2363/2022 and S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 10068/2022, by which, the High Court has directed to enlarge original accused - private respondents herein on bail in connection with FIR No. 474/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of IPC, the original complainant/informant has preferred the present appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that private respondents - accused have been chargesheeted after investigation for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of the IPC. Despite the above and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the chargesheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a non-speaking order has directed to release the accused - private respondents herein on bail by further observing that there is a possibility that trial may take long time to conclude. In a case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in which one person was guilty, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material collected during the investigation. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that the only observations made by the High Court are in paragraph 4 which reads as under:—
“4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.”
3. When the accused are chargesheeted after the investigation, the High Court ought to have taken note of and/or considered the material collected during the investigation even to find out whether there is any material collected during the investigation involving the accused for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, whether it is a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail or not. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the High Court to decide the bail applications afresh.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused has submitted that wife of accused - Sunil Gupta is suffering from brain haemorrhage. It will be open for the accused to prayer for interim bail and/or seek bail on that ground which may be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing private respondents herein - original accused on bail is hereby quashed and set aside. Original accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail authority within a period of 10 days from today and thereafter, the High Court to decide and dispose of the bail application(s) afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after perusing and/or taking into consideration the material/evidence collected during the investigation which are now a part of the chargesheet and upon taking into consideration the relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while examining the prayer for bail.
6. After surrender, the High Court on remand to decide and dispose of the bail application(s) as observed hereinabove at the earliest. With this the present appeals are allowed.
Alert