V.V. Bedarkar, J.
1. In the communal riots in the city of Godhra, a death of a young Mahomedan boy named Mahomed Hussain Aziz Maulvi took place on 1-8-1981. During the investigation, the police arrested nine persons as the persons involved in the crime. Those persons submitted a bail application before the Sessions Court, Panchmahals District at Godhra, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the said application, granted the same and released all the applicants of that bail application on bail. Being aggrieved by the said order of granting bail, the State has come to this Court for cancellation of bail.
2. A.N. Surti, J., who heard the matter for admission, issued rule only so far as present opponent No. 1 Hiralal Motilal Advani is concerned and, therefore, I have to hear the grievance of the State against the release of only opponent No. 1 on bail.
3. It should be noted that as per the evidence collected by the Police through statements, the deceased had gone to the factory of accused No. 1 (opponent No. 1) to purchase ice with his brother. It was the case that there the deceased was slapped and, therefore, information was conveyed to the uncle of the deceased and, therefore, when he went there, he saw the dead-body of the deceased near the station. Thereafter the dead-body of the deceased was taken to the hospital where post-mortem examination was done and the dead-body was thereafter buried. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 1-8-1981 at about 11.00 a. m., but the complaint was given by the complainant at about 8.15 p. m. The prosecution relied on some aspects about the gunny bag 'with blood having jeeh found from the shop of opponent No. 1 and also a trail of blood going from the road right up to the place where the dead-body was found lying. But it also transpired from the police papers that there were no blood-marks in the ice factory of opponent No. 1. On overall consideration of the evidence gathered by the police through police statements and also various panchnamas, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants-accused before him were involved in the case of murder or in a case where there is imprisonment for life and, therefore, he released all of them on bail.
4. Mr. K.J. Vaidya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, could not very much challenge the finding of fact of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He could not show to me from the discussion that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was not justified from the evidence collected by the police through police papers. But it is the submission of Mr. Vaidya that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed in details other aspects and, therefore, it is his apprehension that this might prejudice the case of any party.
5. In order to support his contention, Mr. Vaidya cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Raiaram Kharote : 1980CriLJ426 . In that case before the Supreme Court there was an allegation against the police about causing the murder and committing allied offences under Sections 302, 341, 395, 404 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code. The police people who were accused were granted bail by the Sessions Court. The High Court declined to interfere in the order of enlarging the accused on bail. When the matter went before the Supreme Court, it was observed as follows (Para 3):
Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing the orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
Mr. Vaidya. therefore, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have gone into elaborate aspects.
6. It is true that whenever the Courts have to decide bail applications, they have merely to consider the necessary evidence on its factual aspect in order to come to the conclusion whether prima facie case is brought out or not. But while considering the factual aspects, the Court should not wander into surmises and conjectures and should stick to patent facts from which a prima facie case can be considered. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court objected to the observations of the learned Sessions Judge to the following effect:
So it is reasonable to hold that there was a scuffle and resistance offered by the victim Amarjeet Singh before shots were fired at his person by the accused No. 1.
Now, this is something beyond mere discussion of factual aspects and is going into the arena of surmises. It is. therefore, necessary for the parties advancing arguments before the Court to see that they do not invite the Court in going into the details and depths of the argumentative process by trying to canvass before them such points which would require the Court to answer them by going into the supposed effect of the facts brought on the record. If an argument is advanced, it cannot be said that the Judge should ignore that argument and, therefore, it would be necessary for a Judge to set out in details the salient features of the case and also the arguments and then he has to consider from those aspects whether a prima facie case is made out so that the bail can be refused or a case has been made out that bail should be granted. So, it must be stated that it is the duty of the parties as well as the Court to see that at the stage of deciding bail application, the Court is not dragged into minutest details and in an arena of conjectures or hypothesis. It cannot be said that the Court should never enter into the details if arguments are specifically advanced on the strength of details. It is common experience that whatever has been observed in the bail application is never taken for granted in order to come to a proper decision of that case on over-all appreciation of the evidence led during the trial. But apparently, some times one may feel that his case has been prejudiced. So, the Court must while deciding the bail application touch the barest minimum facts necessary to come to the conclusion about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, and if necessary, may mention the arguments advanced and reject the same if they require the Court to go into the details which merely lead to the conclusion based on some facts and assumptions.
7. So far as this petition is concerned. I find no merit in it and, therefore, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.