Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1234 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1480 of 2019)
Vinod Singh Negi ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1235 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1481 of 2019)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.08.14
17:59:29 IST
Reason:
judgment and order dated 19.09.2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.A.
1 1
No.4310 of 2014 and Crl.A. No.4213 of 2014
whereby the High Court released the
respondents(accused persons) in both the appeals
on bail by suspending their sentence of life
imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court in S.T.
No.465 of 2006 and S.T. No.466 of 2006.
3.
In order to appreciate the short question
involved in these appeals, a few facts need mention
hereinbelow.
4. The appellant in both the appeals is the
complainant whereas Umesh Sharmarespondent
No. 2 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.1480 of
2019, Ashokrespondent No. 2 and Parvinder Singh
respondent No.3 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.)
No.1481 of 2019 are the accused persons.
5. Three accused persons, namely, Umesh
Sharma, Ashok and Parvinder Singh were
prosecuted under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
2 2
for commission of murder of one –Manoj, who was
brother of the appellant complainant.
6. By judgment dated 28.10.2014/30.10.2014,
the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C.
Act, Ghaziabad convicted all the three accused
persons under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced
them rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.50,000/ each in S.T. No 465 and 466 of 2006.
7. The three accused persons felt aggrieved by
their order of conviction and sentence filed criminal
appeal in the High Court of Allahabad. During
pendency of appeals, all the three accused persons
applied for suspension of their jail sentence.
8. By impugned order, the High Court allowed
the applications made by all the three accused
persons and suspended their respective jail
sentence by directing that all the three accused be
released on bail.
3 3
9. It is against this order, the complainant felt
aggrieved and has filed these two appeals by way of
special leave in this Court. So far as the State (R1)
is concerned, it has supported the appellant by
filing their counter affidavit along with annexures.
So far accused persons (R2 in
Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)1480/2019 and respondent Nos. 2
& 3 in Crl.A.@SLP(CRl.)1481/2019) are concerned,
they were served and duly represented except
respondent No.3 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.1481/2019.
The name of respondent No.3, namely, Parvinder
Singh, in Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.) No.1481/2019 was
deleted from the array of parties by this Court order
dated 08.05.2019.
10. So, the short question, that arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in directing release of all the
4 4
aforementioned accused persons during pendency
of their appeals.
11. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shrish Kumar
Misra, learned counsel for the State of U.P. in both
the appeals, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior
counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)
No.1480/2019, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned
senior counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.A.@SLP
(Crl.) No.1481/2019.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length and on perusal of the record of the
case, we are constrained to allow these appeals and
while setting aside the impugned order, remand the
case to the High Court for deciding the applications
of these respondents(Accused persons) filed for
grant of bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on
merits. The remand is made for two reasons as set
out below.
5 5
13. In the first place, we find that the High Court
has not assigned any reason for grant of bail. How
the application of bail/suspension of jail sentence
should be decided by the Courts and what should
be the approach of the Court while deciding such
application remains no more res integra and is laid
down by this Court in series of cases (see
Ajay
Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7
SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,
(2008) 16 SCC 753, Dataram Singh vs. State of
(2018) 3 SCC 22 &
U.P. & Anr., judgment dated
29.07.2019 in Crl.A. No.1150/2019 etc.etc.
Mauji Ram vs. State of U.P. & Anr. ).
14. In our view, the law laid down by this Court in
the aforementioned cases was not followed by the
High Court while passing the impugned order and,
6 6
therefore, interference in the impugned order is
called for.
15. In the second place, we find that the appellant
(complainant) and the State have filed additional
evidence against the accused persons for the first
time in these appeals to show the criminal
background of the accused persons and the list of
criminal cases pending against some accused
persons for commission of several offences. The list
shows that some cases were registered against the
concerned respondents(accused persons) prior to
the grant of bail and some cases were registered
after the grant of bail. The High Court did not take
note of these facts.
16. In the light of the aforementioned two grounds,
we are of the considered opinion that the impugned
order deserves to be set aside and the case is
remanded to the High Court enabling it to
reconsider the applications for grant of
7 7
bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on their
respective merits keeping in view the two grounds
noted above. The appeals thus succeed and are
accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set
aside.
17. The case is remanded to the High Court for
deciding the applications filed by the
respondents(accused persons) for grant of
bail/suspension of their jail sentence afresh on
their respective merits keeping in view the law laid
down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions
coupled with the material filed by the State and the
complainant in support of their case. The High
Court after hearing all the parties shall pass
appropriate order on the applications in accordance
with law.
8 8
18. Since the impugned order is set aside, the
accused persons are directed to surrender for being
taken into custody. Their bail bonds stand
cancelled.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
August 14, 2019
9 9