DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

PROJECT ON:

RELEVANCE OF SECTION 161 AND SECTION 164 WITH RESPECT TO BAIL

PROVISIONS

(Submitted for the project undertaken in partial fulfilment of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)V Sem.

5 year integrated course at RMLNLU, Lucknow).

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Prem Kumar Gautam ANCHAL SINGH

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (Law) Section A, V Sem

RMLNLU B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to express my deep gratitude to my educator Mr.(Dr.) Prem Kumar Gautam who

gave me the brilliant chance to finalize this glorious research subject; "Relevance of Section

161 and Section 164 of bail provisions" which has helped me pick up a mess of viewpoint

about the development of the role of Indian Judiciary and bail provisions. All through the

exploration period, I have been guided by my educator at whatever point I confronted any

obstacles or was in a state of daze not having the capacity to resolve the intricacies of the

subject.

I want to thank my University, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University,

Lucknow, for giving me the opportunity to be a part of a novel exploration turned

educational program which without a doubt helps the comprehension of the subject.

I, likewise, want to thank my guardians, guides and well-wishers who have been a

consistent sunder pin and have sufficient energy and again looked into my work and have

give their experiences on the matter.

- Anchal Singh

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4

THE PHILOSPHY OF BAIL.....................................................................................................4

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE..................................................11

RELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTIONs 161 and 164 OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.........................................................................................13

CONCLUSION/ RELATING SECTIONs 161 and 164 WITH RELEASE OF A PERSON. .17

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................23

3|Page
INTRODUCTION  

The facility of Bail mainly aims at social defence and individual correction. Justice Krishna

Iyer in one of his judgments stated that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a

socially sensitized judicial process. The judicial discretion is an appeal to the judicial

conscience of the community reflected through a court of justice. Therefore, discretion cannot

be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular.  Coming to the point, sections 161 and

164 play an important role with respect to release of persons. Under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, “the Investigating Officer is empowered to examine orally any person

(including a suspect) who is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of

the case, and he may reduce into writing the statement of each such person and when he does

so, he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he

records”. The objective of Section 164 of CrPC, is to ensure a method of securing record of

statements or confessions, that are made during the course of investigation by the police,

which could be used during trial or enquiry, if required. There are instances where the court

may acquit an accused/grant him bail because of the infirmity in recording the statements

under these respective sections.

The main issue is that no one should be derived of his personal liberty arbitrarily. Recording

made to police and magistrate respectively are of much importance. However, there can be

difference between these two recordings. Therefore, in this project, the author will try to

analyze the implications in such situations. The author will only cover relevant case laws and

other related relevant materials.

THE PHILOSPHY OF BAIL

According to the words of Benjamin Cardozo:

4|Page
 “The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate

at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own

ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated

principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and

unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition,

methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the

primordial necessity of order in the social life. Wide enough in all conscience

is the field of discretion that remains Even so it is useful to notice the tart

terms of Lord Camden that   the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants: it is

always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends

upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in

the worst,  it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable.”

Therefore, the accused party is detained in custody not due to his guilt but, because of lack of

sufficient grounds for the charge against him and to ensure his trial. It is also so because it’s

necessary to detain him for his appearance at trial. It is a very important element in

considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial.

In this context, it is rational to enquire into the past records of the man who is applying for

bail- particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while

on bail. In regard to habitual, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order

has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of

society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant is

therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.

Police exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if enlarged, must be soberly

sized up lest danger of excesses and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial

5|Page
technique. Bad record and police prediction of criminal prospects to invalidate the bail plea

are admissible in principle but shall not stampede the Court into a complacent refusal.

In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), this Court took the view:

“In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise its judicial discretion in

favour of granting bail subject to sub- section (3) of Section 437 CrPC if it deems

necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the

notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the

Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also clear that when an

accused is brought before the Court of a Magistrate with the allegation against

him of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he has

ordinarily no option in the matter but to refuse bail subject, however, to the first

proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC and in a case where the Magistrate entertains a

reasonable belief on the materials that the accused has not been guilty of such an

offence. This will, however, be an extraordinary occasion since there will be

some materials at the stage of initial arrest, for the accusation or for strong

suspicion of commission by the person of such an offence.”

 In Babu Singh v. State of U.P. , this Court opined:

“The Code is cryptic on this topic and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the order

custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and

burden on the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of

bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. … So it is desirable that the

subject is disposed of on basic principle, not improvised brevity draped as

6|Page
 discretion. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value

of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the curial power to

negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with  lively

concern for the cost to the individual and the community. To glamorise

impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative

gamble decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or

convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure

established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human

right. …”

In Moti Ram v. State of M.P., this Court, while discussing pre-trial detention, held: “The

consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent arc subjected

to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous

conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he

has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally

important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his

family.”

The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by this Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v.

State of Rajasthan , thus:

“Bail remains an undefined term in CrPC. Nowhere else has the term been

statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for

assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints. Since the UN

Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept

of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. Bail may thus be

7|Page
 regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the

function of securing the presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves

participation of the community in administration of justice.”

The law of bail, similar to other branches of law, has its own philosophy, and plays an

important role in the administration of justice. The concept of bail originates from the conflict

between the police power to restrict freedom of the accused and presumption of innocence of

the accused until proven guilty. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of

punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.

More recently, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, this

Court observed that society’s interest of maintenance of law and order is as important as

freedom is to a citizen. This Court further observed: “Personal liberty is a very precious

fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” This Court has taken the view that when

there is a delay in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused.

In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, this Court held as:

It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the

accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii)

severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused

absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means,

position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being

repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with;

and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

8|Page
 

Moreover, while a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or

witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere

presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will

use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.

It is further submitted that the grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the

Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of

each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of

the sentiments of the community against the accused.

The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to

relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep

the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to

assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon

whenever his presence is required. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State observed, “ two

paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence,

apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from

justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the

fair trial of the case”. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in

our view, the same is not convincing.

This Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef has stated:  In deciding bail applications

an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the

delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail

but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is

9|Page
Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our

Constitution, not violated in such a case?

10 | P a g e
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE

One of the finest and foremost tests in a criminal case, to consider credibility and reliability

of the prosecution version both oral and documentary, is appreciation of evidence. The

Judgment in a criminal case is mainly based upon appreciation of evidences.

From settling the law in motion in a criminal case by preferring FIR to filing of a final report

by the police after investigation and ultimately resulting in admissibility and reliability of

various kinds of evidences before the court, appreciation of evidences is the heart and soul of

delivery of justice in criminal law.

Criminal cases involves life and death problem of a citizen and the destiny of the citizen is to

be decided by carefully analyzing and scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. has held as follows :

“The time-tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to

conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the

accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants,

lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the

appellants were the real culprits.”

In yet another decision in State of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

as follows:

"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of

justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence

adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other

11 | P a g e
 to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be

adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that

miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may

arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an

innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast

upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused

has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of

the accused really committed any offence or not."

12 | P a g e
RELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTIONs 161 and 164 OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Section 161 of Cr. P. C. –

It was held in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, “statement recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C.

shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner prescribed in

the proviso to Section 162 (1)” ; further held that the First Information Report is not a

substantial piece of evidence.

In Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:

“A statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C is not a substantive piece of evidence. In

view of the provision to Section 162 (1) CrPC, the said statement can be used only

for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof in the manner laid

down in the said proviso. Therefore, the High Court committed a manifest error

of law in relying upon wholly inadmissible evidence in recording a finding that

Respondent 2 could not have been present at the scene of commission of the

crime.”

Section 164 Cr. P. C. Statement –

It can be used for corroboration or contradiction. In Sunil Kumar vs. State of M.P., the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:

“This conclusion of ours, however, does not in any way affect the merits of the

prosecution case for we find that immediately after PW 1 was taken to the

13 | P a g e
 hospital his statement was recorded as a dying declaration which, consequent

upon survival, is to be treated only as a statement recorded under Section 164

Cr. P. C and can be used for corroboration or contradiction. ....”

In R.Palanisamy vs State on 23 April, 2013, it was said:

“33. The objective behind recording of statement of a witness under Section 164

Cr.P.C. is that it is for an assurance that the investigation is going on in right

direction, it is going against a right person and, a belief that it will instill a

sense of feeling in the mind of the deponent that later he should not resile from

it. A feeling that he has been tied down to his such earlier statement.

34. In practice, resort being made to Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating

Officers mainly when the case is in the investigation stage. Section 164 Cr.P.C.

enables recording of statement of witnesses by the Magistrate and confession

from the accused. The statement of witness has to be recorded like a statement

recorded from a witness in the court. Before recording the statement, oath has

to be administered to the witness. But, such recording of statement is not like

recording of confession from the accused. Only before and after recording a

confession, various precautionary measures including giving of reflection time

to the accused has been prescribed. This rigorous exercise need not be followed

for recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C.”

“38.Under Section 161 Cr.P.C., during investigation, the Investigating Officer

can orally examine any person acquainted with the facts of the case. When he

reduces the true account of it, then it becomes a statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and gist of it must find a place in his Case Diary (C.D.) (See Section

172 Cr.P.C). This is the 'previous statement' recorded by the Investigating

14 | P a g e
 Officer during investigation stage. It cannot be used as 'substantive evidence' as

against the accused. There is total embargo in Section 162 Cr.P.C. for such

usage with an exception in Section 162(2) Cr.P.C., that is, when the author of

the statement dies it becomes his dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the

Evidence Act. The section 161 statement can be used by the accused to

contradict and impeach the credibility of the witness by the accused. It can be

used by the accused in his favour. It cannot be used by the prosecution as

against him. (See Sections 145, 155, 157 of Indian Evidence Act).”

Therefore, it can be stated that the police may record contradictory statement even in case of

a truthful witness who must have said the same thing to the police and in the court. Hence,

this statement in the case diary often turns out to be helpful in acquittal of the accused if the

issue is not handled by the court, carefully. This is evident from observation of various recent

decisions of various courts.

Regarding ‘confession’ in S. 164 CrPC, in Sahib Singh vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has held thus:

“Section 24 provides, though in the negative form, that ‘Confession’ can be

treated as relevant against the person making the confession unless it appears to

the Court that it is rendered irrelevant on account of any of the factors, namely,

threat, inducements, promises etc. mentioned therein. Whether the ‘Confession’

attracts the frown of Section 24 has to be considered from the point of view of the

confession of the accused as to how the inducement, threat or promise from a

person in authority would operate in his mind… “Confession has to be

affirmatively proved to be free and voluntary. Before a conviction can be based

on “confession”, it has to be shown that it was truthful.

15 | P a g e
 43. Section 25 which provides that a Confession made to a Police Officer shall

not be proved against the person accused of an offence, places complete ban on

the making of such confession by that person whether he is in custody or not.

Section 26 lays down that confession made by a person while he is in custody of

a Police Officer shall not be proved against him unless it is made in the

immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 provides that when any fact is

discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any

offence who is in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information,

whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates to the fact thereby

discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is thus in the form of a proviso to Sections

24, 25 and 26. Section 164, 281 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are the

other provisions dealing with confession and the manner in which it is to be

recorded.”

16 | P a g e
CONCLUSION/ RELATING SECTIONs 161 and 164 WITH RELEASE OF A

PERSON

It can be submitted that confessions of various accused persons under Section 164 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be considered to be voluntary on account of the

fact that they contradict earlier statement under Section 161.

Let us see case by case.

The first precaution that a Judicial Magistrate is required to take is to prevent forcible

extraction of confession by the prosecuting agency. It was also held by this Court in the case

of Shivappa v. State of Karnataka that the provisions of Section 164 Code of Criminal

Procedure must be complied with not only in form, but in essence. Before proceeding to

record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to

the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such

custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence

proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution.

While reiterating the same principle it was held:

“The Magistrate who is entrusted with the duty of recording confession of an

accused coming from police custody or jail custody must appreciate his function

in that behalf as one of a judicial officer and he must apply his judicial mind to

ascertain and satisfy his conscience that the statement the accused makes is not

on account of any extraneous influence on him. That indeed is the essence of a

'voluntary' statement within the meaning of the provisions of Section 164 Code

of Criminal Procedure and the rules framed by the High Court for the guidance

of the subordinate courts. Moreover, the Magistrate must not only be satisfied

17 | P a g e
 as to the voluntary character of the statement, he should also make and leave

such material on the record in proof of the compliance with the imperative

requirements of the statutory provisions, as would satisfy the court that sits in

judgment in the case, that the confessional statement was made by the accused

voluntarily and the statutory provisions were strictly complied with.”

In Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P., the following conclusion arrived at by this

Court is relevant:

“It is also true that before a confessional statement made under Section 164 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure can be acted upon, it must be shown to be

voluntary and free from police influence and that the confessional statement

made by the Appellant in the instant case cannot be taken into account, as it

suffers from serious infirmities in that (1) there is no contemporaneous record to

show that the Appellant was actually kept in jail as ordered on September 6,

1974 by Shri R.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, (2) Shri R.P. Singh

who recorded the so called confessional statement of the Appellant did not

question him as to why he was making the confession and (3) there is also

nothing in the statement of the said Magistrate to show that he told the Appellant

that he would not be remanded to the police lock-up even if he did not confess his

guilt. It cannot also be gainsaid that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by

the prosecution must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other

hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.”

In Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court held:

“...In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the

confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper

18 | P a g e
 approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused

person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is

inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the

said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself

that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right.”

Therefore, it can be stated that in law it is always open to the court to convict an accused on

his confession itself though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless usually courts

require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused person

on such a statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such a case would

always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case.

In Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, it was stated:

“The following principles emerge with regard to Section 164 Code of Criminal

Procedure.:

(i) The provisions of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure must be complied

with not only in form, but in essence.

(ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry

must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced

and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that

there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a

source interested in the prosecution.

(iii) A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he wants to make a statement

which surely shall go against his interest in the trial.

(iv) The maker should be granted sufficient time for reflection.

19 | P a g e
 (v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or

pressure from the police in case he declines to make a confessional statement.

(vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such

a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted

judicial confession.

(vii) Non-compliance of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure goes to the root

of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the confession and renders the

confession unworthy of credence.

(viii) During the time of reflection, the accused should be completely out of police

influence. The judicial officer, who is entrusted with the duty of recording

confession, must apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his conscience

that the statement of the accused is not on account of any extraneous influence on

him.

(ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused, no police or police

official shall be present in the open court.

(x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence.

(xi) Usually the Court requires some corroboration from the confessional

statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement.”

Then in R.Palanisamy vs State , it was said:

“Although the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during

investigation is also a previous statement like a statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., but, it has some higher value than the statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police since it was recorded by a Magistrate.”

20 | P a g e
In T. Diwakara v. State  of Karnataka, during investigation, P.W. 10 gave statement before a

Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but, later during the Sessions trial, he turned hostile. In

such circumstances, the Karnataka High Court held as under:

“The statement of PW 10 was recorded before the Magistrate. After the lodging of

the complaint, PW 10 has turned hostile. But the trial court convicted the accused

on the strength of statement of PW 10 recorded under Section 164 of Criminal

Procedure Code. The trial court grossly erred in placing reliance on the

statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code as

substantive evidence. While convicting the accused the statement recorded under

Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code does not have any better legal status

than the one recorded under Section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. At the

most, if the deponent whose statement is recorded under Section 164  of Criminal

Procedure Code turns hostile, he/she could be prosecuted for perjury but on the

strength of such statement no conviction can be placed.”

Therefore, when a witness gave statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later

during the trial before the learned Sessions Judge disowned it, gave different version, either

the statement given by him before the learned Magistrate may be true or his deposition before

the learned Sessions Judge may be true, but both may not be true.

Therefore, these factors should be considered in granting of bail or in acquittal of person. As

in State of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in

criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the

case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,

the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The

21 | P a g e
 paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice

is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the

guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where

admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-

appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose

of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence

or not."

The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is

regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the

same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the

community against the accused.

At present times, when boy and girl eloped from their homes, and girl’s parents register

complaints against the boy for kidnapping of the girl, confession of girl or contradictory

confessions need to be considered in granting of bail.

22 | P a g e
REFERENCES-

Books:

 Kelkar, R.V, Lectures on Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,

5th Edition, 2013.

 Chandrashekharan, K.N. and R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book

Company, Lucknow, 6th Edition, 2014.

Legal Databases:

 Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

 Manupatra Online

Statutes:

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

23 | P a g e