Sec 437 and 439

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Apr 4 04:19:18 2024
SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline
Citations:
Please note: citations are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred
citation format's style manual for proper citation formatting.
Bluebook 21st ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC),
4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2022).
ALWD 7th ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC),
4 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 1 (2022).
APA 7th ed.

Rathore, Bhuvneshwari. (2022). Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) SCC 40: (2011) UJ 4077
(SC). Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 4, 1-3.
Chicago 17th ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, "Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077
(SC)," Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 4 (2022): 1-3
McGill Guide 9th ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, "Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC)"
(2022) 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch 1.
AGLC 4th ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, 'Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC)'
(2022) 4 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 1
MLA 9th ed.

Rathore, Bhuvneshwari. "Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077
(SC)." Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 4, 2022, pp. 1-3. HeinOnline.
OSCOLA 4th ed.

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, 'Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC)'
(2022) 4 Indian JL & Legal Rsch 1 Please note: citations are
provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred citation
format's style manual for proper citation formatting.
Provided by:
Available Through: National Law University Odisha
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue V IISSN: 2582-8878
SANJAY CHANDRA V. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077

(SC)
Bhuvneshwari Rathore, BA LLB, NMIMS, Bangalore
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
Sanjay Chandra is accused of conspiring with A. Raja, R.K. Chandolia, and other defendants
in September 2009 to get a UAS license for delivering telecom services to companies that were
otherwise ineligible to obtain UAS licenses. The appellants are accused of violating the Indian
Penal Code Sections 420-B, 468, 471, and 109, as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, Section 13(2), read with 13(i) (d). Bail was initially denied by the Special Judge of the
CBI in New Delhi, and then by the High Court. The seriousness of the charge; the nature of
the evidence in support of the charge; the likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; the
possibility of interfering with witnesses; the prosecuting authorities' objection; and the
possibility of absconding from justice are all factors that both courts believe are relevant in
refusing the applicants' Bail applications. The appellants, who are aggrieved by this, have filed
these appeals with the Hon'ble Apex Court.
MAIN ISSUE:
Whether magisterial discretion under section 437 and 439 extends to granting bail in
cognizable offenses as well?
CrPC PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
This case involves Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the notion
that it is not in the best interests of justice for the accused to be imprisoned indefinitely while
awaiting trial.
* The nature and intensity of the circumstances in which the offense is committed are
common considerations/factors in granting bail under both Section 437 (1) and Section
Page: 1
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue V I ISSN: 2582-8878
439, CrPc.
" The court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118, took the view
that if the Court judges it essential to act under subsection (3) of Section 437 CrPC in
other non-bailable matters, it will exercise its judicial discretion in favor of granting
bail. Unless the Court is informed of unusual circumstances that might jeopardize the
effective investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not refuse to issue bail to a person
who is not charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.
" In dealing with the issue of bail under Section 498 of the old code, the court in the state
v Captain Jagjit Singh (supra), while setting aside the High Court's order granting bail,
made certain general observations with regard to the principles that should govern in
granting bail in a non-bailable case, such as the court should have taken into account
the various considerations, such as the court should have taken into account the various
considerations
" It is also clear that when an accused is brought before a Magistrate's Court with the
charge of committing an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, he has no
choice but to refuse bail, subject to the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC and in cases
where the Magistrate has a reasonable belief based on the evidence that the accused has
not committed such an offense. This will, however, be a unique situation since there
will be evidence at the time of the original arrest for the allegation or strong suspicion
of the person's involvement in the commission of such an incident.
" Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will have to use their judicial discretion
when deciding whether or not to issue bail under Section 439(1)of the CrPC. The nature
and intensity of the circumstances in which the offense is committed, as we mentioned
previously and which are common in both Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) of the
CrPC, are the prevailing considerations in granting bail. the accused's position and
status concerning the victim and witnesses; the likelihood of the accused eluding
justice; repeating the offense; jeopardizing his own life in the face of a bleak prospect
of possible conviction in the case; tampering with witnesses; the case's history as well
as its investigation; and other relevant grounds that, in light of so many important
factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
Page: 2
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue V I ISSN: 2582-8878
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE
The Supreme Court held that the gravity and seriousness of an offense should not be the sole
factors for rejecting an accused's bail. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion
of the court.
PROBABLE FUTURE IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT:
With regards to the judgment of the above mentioned case considerations relevant to carrying
out a smooth investigation and whether accused is a flight risk are relevant in denying or
granting bail. The same was reiterated by the Apex Court recently in Prabhakar Tewari v. State
of U.P. & Ors. Additionally, the 2017 Law Commission Report on bail in the Code of Criminal
Procedure has also recommended excluding the nature and gravity of an offense from the
factors considered while undertaking risk assessment during bail proceedings.
The Court has a severe obligation to rule on bail petitions as quickly as feasible, making a
reasoned ruling based on the applicant's good faith in light of the facts and circumstances.
Apart from the issue of prevention being the focus of a refusal of bail, it is important to
remember that any imprisonment before conviction has a significant punitive component, and
it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of previous conduct,
whether the accused has been convicted or not, or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person in
order to teach him a lesson. When evaluating an application for bail under Section 437 or 439
of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court should remember that granting bail is the rule and
committing to jail is the exception. Further discretionary jurisdiction of courts u/s 437 and 439
CrPC should be exercised carefully and cautiously by balancing the rights of the accused and
the interests of the society. In reality, the Supreme Court acknowledges that the High Court
should typically be the final arbitrator under instances involving bail grant or refusal and that
it should not intervene for every mistake of law or fact in a challenge. In reality, the Supreme
Court understands that the High Court should typically be the last arbitrator in instances
involving the grant or rejection of bail and that it should limit its involvement in every legal
mistake.
Page: 3

Sec 437 and 439

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 437 and 439

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 437 and 439

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Apr 4 04:19:18 2024

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Bluebook 21st ed.

ALWD 7th ed.

APA 7th ed.

Chicago 17th ed.

McGill Guide 9th ed.

AGLC 4th ed.

MLA 9th ed.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

SANJAY CHANDRA V. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077

Bhuvneshwari Rathore, BA LLB, NMIMS, Bangalore

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:

CrPC PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

JUDGMENT OF THE CASE

PROBABLE FUTURE IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT:

You might also like