top of page

Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs The State Of Rajasthan

Supreme Court of India

Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2022

Author: B.V. Nagarathna

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna









The Apex Court held that bail cannot be granted by a cryptic and causal order without considering the material aspects of the case. The Supreme Court further clarified that even if no new circumstances have developed after the grant of bail, the State is entitled to seek cancellation of bail, if it had been granted ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case...

Fact Matrix

The applicant, the son of the deceased, challenged the disputed decision of the High Court, resulting in bail for the accused. This decision was challenged by the applicant for the following reasons:

A) accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the late Ram Swaroop Khokhar, the informant’s father and disabled applicant. Man. Therefore, the crimes alleged against the accused were of a serious nature. B) The deceased was elected Deputy sarpanch in the village of Mandha Bhopawaspachar in 2015, despite opposition from the defendant and his family. Due to such political hostility, the defendant overwhelmed the deceased, who was suffering from 54% of permanent physical disabilities on his feet, fixed him to the ground, sat on him, and his I suffocated my neck. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was antemortem strangulation. C) That the respondentaccused was a person exercising significant political influence due to which there was great difficulty in registering the FIR against him. Moreover, the accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest. Thus, the possibility of the accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, could not be ruled out. D) That the respondentaccused had earlier preferred applications seeking bail, under section 437 of the CrPC on two occasions and again under section 439 of the CrPC but the same were rejected having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused. The applicant alleged that the High Court, in a very mysterious order, refused to justify and gave the defendant bail on bail worthy of reserve.

Supreme Court reasoning

Initially, the extracted part was the only part that formed part of the Supreme Court's "reason" for granting bail. Regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the case, I think it is appropriate to release the defendant on bail ...



This attraction has been desired via way of means of the informant­appellant assailing Order dated seventh May, 2020 handed via way of means of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3601/2020, wherein bail has been granted to the accused who’s the second one respondent withinside the immediate attraction, in reference to FIR No. 407/2019 Police Station Kalwar. Signature Not Verified 2. According to the appellant, he’s the son of the deceased, Digitally signed via way of means of R Natarajan Ram Swaroop Khokhar and is the individual that lodged the First Date: 2022.01.eleven 16:35:07 IST Reason:

Information Report being FIR No. 407/2019 on eight th December,

2019 for the offence of homicide of his father, below Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (hereinafter noted as “IPC” for the sake of brevity) in opposition to the second one respondent­ accused herein viz. Ram Narayan Jat.

3. The stated FIR dated eighth December, 2019 have been lodged via way of means of the appellant herein among 23:00 hrs and 23:30 hrs withinside the night time pointing out that in advance on that day, at approximately 16:00 hrs, his father, elderly approximately fifty five years, changed into attacked via way of means of the respondent­ accused, on the Lalpura Pachar bus stand, with the goal of killing him. That the respondent­accused pinned the deceased to the ground, sat on his chest and forcefully strangled him, thereby inflicting his death. Some buddies of the respondent­accused who have been gift on the spot of the incident, helped him in attacking and killing the deceased. The informant­appellant in addition said withinside the FIR that there has been a pre­current competition among the respondent­accused, his brothers namely, Arjun, Satyanarayn and Okramal and the deceased. That the deceased had formerly knowledgeable the appellant and positive own circle of relatives individuals approximately such competition and had communicated that he changed into anxious approximately his protection due to the identical. That even at the day of the incident, the respondent­accused at the side of one in every of his brothers, Okramal

Had long past to the appellant`s residence withinside the morning and had abused the deceased. The file of the publish­mortem exam performed on ninth December, 2019 has recorded that the deceased had died due to “asphyxia because of ante mortem strangulation.”

4. The respondent­accused changed into arrested in reference to the stated FIR No. 407/2019 on 10 th December, 2019 and changed into despatched to judicial custody. The respondent­accused remained below judicial custody for a length of almost 365 days and 5 months until he changed into granted bail via way of means of the High Court vide impugned order.

5. A fee sheet changed into submitted via way of means of the police earlier than the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur after undertaking an research on the subject of the aforesaid FIR. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate via way of means of Order dated 12 th March, 2020 took awareness of the offence and devoted the case to the District and Sessions Court for trial and adjudication.

6. The respondent­accused had in advance desired packages searching for bail, below Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “CrPC”) earlier than the Court of

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on occasions. The identical got here to be rejected via way of means of orders dated twenty third January, 2020 and sixth March, 2020. The accused had additionally desired a bail software below Section 439 of the CrPC which changed into rejected via way of means of the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan via way of means of order dated 12 th March, 2020 having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged in opposition to the accused. The respondent­accused desired every other bail software earlier than the High Court and via way of means of the impugned order dated seventh May, 2020, the High Court has enlarged him on bail. Being aggrieved via way of means of the provide of bail to the respondent­accused, the informant­appellant has desired the immediate attraction earlier than this Court.

7. We have heard Sri. Basant R., found out Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, found out Counsel for respondent­accused and feature perused the fabric on record.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased have been elected in 2015 because the Deputy Sarpanch of Mandha Bhopawaspachar village, Jhotwara Tehsil, Jaipur, Rajasthan. That he changed into elected to such publish

Notwithstanding competition from the accused and his own circle of relatives. That the own circle of relatives of the accused exercised great impact withinside the village and have been seeking to dissuade the deceased from contesting the election to the publish of Sarpanch, to be held in February 2020. Owing to such political enmity, the respondent­accused alongside together along with his brothers Arjun, Satyanarayn and Okramal had long past to the appellant`s residence withinside the morning on eighth December, 2019 and abused the deceased and in a while the identical day, the deceased changed into killed. According to the appellant, the deceased changed into affected by 54% everlasting bodily impairment of each his legs and had consequently been overpowered via way of means of the respondent­accused who had pinned him to the ground, sat on his chest and throttled his neck, ensuing in his death.

9. Further it changed into entreated that the High Court has now no longer exercised its discretion judiciously in granting bail to the respondent­ accused. That the High Court has now no longer considered the gravity of the offence alleged and the grave way wherein the offence changed into devoted in opposition to someone incapable of shielding himself due to bodily impairment.

10. It changed into submitted that the factum of preceding enmity among the own circle of relatives of the accused and the deceased has now no longer been considered via way of means of the High Court withinside the context of the allegations in opposition to the accused with reference to the provide of bail. That the opportunity of respondent­accused, someone exercise excessive political impact in Bhopawaspachar village, absconding or threatening the witnesses or the own circle of relatives of the deceased, thereby having a bearing at the trial, if launched on bail couldn’t be dominated out. That the police have been to start with reluctant to even sign in an FIR in opposition to the respondent­accused. In fact, the accused changed into arrested via way of means of the police on tenth December, 2019 best due to the protest (dharna) executed via way of means of the own circle of relatives individuals of the deceased outdoor the police station. It changed into contended that the accused.

Consider the pickpocket’s claim. Basant R, Senior Advisor to Whistle Blower and Plaintiff. Found that the disputed order to grant bail to the accused was unfounded and that such an order was accidental and mysterious, and extracted some of the disputed orders dated May 7, 2020. To do. This was passed by the High Council, the “reason” for the court granting bail. As a disadvantage of the case, I find it appropriate to extend the accused petitioner to bail. Therefore, this bail request is permitted and is directed by the accused plaintiff, Ram Narayan Jat S / o Shri Bhinva Ram, in accordance with Article 439 Cr.P.C. I have been released on bail. In connection with the above FIR, Rs with the same amount of deposit that the judge concerned will be satisfied with, provided he complies with all of Section 437 (3) Cr.PC. Subject to the submission of 50,000 / personal bail. The specified condition. “

14. Before proceeding, it would be useful to refer to this court’s ruling on the issue of granting bail to the accused, such as Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors

a). Prosecutor of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (1978) 1 SCC 240 Krishna Iyer, J. In the drafting of Content

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the Freedom of Persons in Tribunal, the granting of deposits must be considered below:

“7. Therefore, it is clear that the nature of the prosecution is important and that the nature of the evidence is also relevant. Penalties that parties may face in the case of conviction or confirmation of conviction also play a role. 8. Another relevant factor is whether legal means are frustrated by those seeking favorable jurisdiction of the temporarily released court. 9.9. Therefore, legal principles and practices support the court’s view that the applicant may interfere with the witnesses of the indictment or otherwise interfere with the judicial proceedings. In this context, it is not only traditional but wise to look at the history of a man applying for bail to see if he has a bad history-especially a serious crime while he is on bail. History suggesting that you may commit. With respect to common law, careless bail warrants allow executives to take advantage of opportunities to further exacerbate the accused’s criminal record, and therefore not irrelevant is part of the history of criminology.

b) Prahald Singh Bhativ. NCT of Delhi & ORS – (2001) 4 SCC 280, the court highlighted aspects that the court should consider when processing bail applications. The same can be inferred as follows.

“The authority to grant bail is not arbitrary and must be exercised in accordance with established principles, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In granting bail, the court must consider the nature of the allegations, the nature of the evidence supporting them, the severity of the conviction’s judgment, the defendant’s character, behavior, means and position, and circumstances. The personal nature of the defendant, the reasonable ability to guarantee the defendant’s presence in court, the reasonable fear of the witness being tampered with, the greater interests of the nation or state, and similar other considerations. Matters. It should also be noted that the legislature used the term “reasonable reason for belief” instead of “evidence” for bail to be granted.

c) Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh’s Court – (2002) 3 SCC 598, Banerjee, J. Exercising discretionary power on bail issues. Was emphasized by. You must exercise your discretion in the same way. Unsurprisingly, he emphasized that bail cannot be granted without convincing justification, the court said: Granting bail is discretionary, but it is not a self-evident method and requires careful exercise of such discretion. Bond orders cannot be maintained without good reason. Needless to say, bail grants depend on the contextual facts of the matter the court deals with, but the facts always vary from case to case.

Defendant’s social status may be considered, but cannot itself be a determinant of the issuance of bail and must always be combined with other circumstances justifying the issuance of bail, and so on. Should. The nature of the crime is one of the basic considerations for granting bail. The more vicious the crime, the more likely it is that bail will be denied, but it depends on the actual matrix of the problem.

d) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, also known as Pappu Yadav & Anr. – (2004) 7 SCC 528, the court has established that the court considering a bail application cannot conduct a detailed examination of the evidence and a long discussion of the merits of the case, but the court has been on bail. Give a reason to justify the permit.

e) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee (2010) 14 In SCC 496, the court ruled that if the High Court granted bail mechanically, the order would suffer from the malicious intent of mental non-application.

Second, the case cited by the defendant was about a crime allegedly committed by 15 people. In it, the petitioner did not explicitly assign a role to each of those 15 people. Therefore, it was determined that the allegations were ambiguous and could not provide prima facie evidence to justify granting bail to the defendants contained therein. However, in this case, the applicant’s informant has nominated only one defendant, and the role belonging to him is specific. Therefore, it turns out that the judgment on which the defendant’s academics rely is useless in his case, as the facts of the underlying case are so different from the current case.

a) The latest judgment by this court on the issue of the use of common sense and the need to exercise reasonable discretion in obtaining a defendant’s bail order is Brijmani Devi v Pappu Kumar and Anr. -Criminal Appeal Number 1663/2021, imposed on December 17, 2021, the three judges’ rooms of the court set aside an unfounded and accidental High Court order, the accused. I granted the bail and found it as follows. Rights, the court must keep track of the seriousness of the allegations against the defendant and the facts related to the case when considering the application for bail. Appropriate written evidence to allow the court to reach evidence of primary. When considering applying for bail, it is necessary to consider the essential facts of the case in the record and then establish and obtain prima facie evidence. Facts that indicate the nature of the crime, the criminal record of the defendant, and the type of punishment following the conviction of the criminal offense alleged against the defendant must be taken into account. “

. For the obligation to state the reasons of the judiciary or quasi-judicial authority, the judgment of this court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr is referred to. Against Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. – (2010) 9 SCC 496, where , summarized the law in this regard in paragraph 47, after citing numerous judgments of its court. The principles relevant to the purpose in this case are:

“(a) The claim of record of reason is intended to serve the broader principle of justice that justice does not only take place, but must look like that. (B) Record of reason. It also serves as an effective restriction on the arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial powers, as well as administrative powers. (C) Reasons ensure that decision makers exercise their discretion for good reason and ignore irrelevant considerations. (D) Justification has become virtually essential as part of the decision-making process, as well as compliance with the principles of natural law by the judiciary, quasi-judiciary and even government agencies. (E) The ongoing rightward trend in all countries committed to the rule of law and constitutional governance supports rational decisions based on relevant facts. This is, in effect, the lifeline of judicial decision-making and justifies the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (F) The judicial or quasi-judicial opinions of today can be as diverse as the judges and authorities drafting them. All of these decisions serve the common purpose of showing that the relevant factors are considered objectively. This is important to increase the trust of the parties to the proceedings in the legal system. (G) Persistence of reason is a prerequisite for both accountability and transparency in the judiciary.

(h) If a judge or quasi-judicial body is not open enough about his or her decision-making process, it is impossible to know if a judge adheres to the principles of precedent or gradualism.

(i) The reason for the decision must be convincing, clear and concise. Pretending to be justification or “stamp justification” should not be equated with a valid decision.

(j) Transparency is undoubtedly a prerequisite for curbing abuse of jurisdiction. Transparency in decision making not only makes judges and decision makers less likely to make mistakes, but also makes them subject to greater oversight. (See David Shapiro [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731

37) in defending the candidness of justice)

(k) In all common law jurisdictions, judgments play an important role in setting future precedents. .. Therefore, the justifying requirements are essential to the development of the law and are part of the “due process”.

The above judgment is related to the dismissal of the amendment request by the mysterious order of the National Consumer Conflict Relief Commission, but relying on the cited judgment regarding the need for reasoning in resolving the problem. Can be done.


Based on the above discussion, we will consider the facts of this case. Allegations against the defendant and allegations filed prior to the bar association are detailed above. With the same in mind, the next aspect of the case emerges.

a) In connection with the murder of the late Ram Swaroop Khokhar, the father of the informant, the accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC and the applicant was disabled. Therefore, the crimes indicted by the accused are of a serious nature.

b) The accused has been accused of overwhelming the deceased, who was injured on his legs, pressed against the ground, and sat down to choke his neck. According to autopsy reports, the cause of death was strangulation during life.

c) In the case of the plaintiff, the accused is a person who exerts significant political influence in the village of Bopower Spacha, and the informant finds it difficult to register an FIR against him for the same reason. Is. The accused was arrested only after a protest outside the police station requesting the arrest. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant threatens or influences the witnesses while on bail.

d) Defendant has twice filed a previous application for bail under Section 437 of CrPC in the court of an additional Metropolitan Justice of the Peace in Jaipur. The same was rejected by orders dated January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020. Defendant is also based on Section 439 of the CrPC, which was rejected by the judge for an additional session at Jaipur Metropolis by order dated March 12, 2020, given the seriousness of the crime in which the defendant was charged. I submitted a request for bail.

e) In an order under appeal on May 7, 2020, the High Court did not consider the above aspects of the case relating to the granting of bail.

In light of the above facts in this case and given the seriousness of the motion in this case, we believe that Defendant

Is not eligible to grant bail. Curiously, Rajasthan has not appealed to the disputed order.

The High Court lost sight of the above substantive aspects of the case and granted the defendant’s coherent reasoning by a very mysterious and casual order. The High Court found that there was an error in granting the defendant’s bail request. Therefore, the disputed decision of May 7, 2020 will be abolished. Appeals are acceptable.

Defendant is on bail. His bail will be invalidated and he will be ordered to appear at the appropriate prison authorities within two weeks from today.

This article is written by Sankalp Mirani of MNLU Mumbai.

Recent Posts

See All


1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: Parmanand Katara, Human Rights Activist RESPONDENT: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Medical Council, India


Post: Blog2 Post
Anchor 1
bottom of page