Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 1168 of 2021)
PURAN MAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a case
for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short ‘IPC’). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was
rejected by the Trial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High
Court has allowed the bail application of the respondent no. 2. The
complainant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition
questioning legality of the order granting bail to the respondent
Signature Not Verified
no.2.
Digitally signed by
Rachna
Date: 2022.03.15
16:20:43 IST
Reason:
In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who was the
brother of the complainant/appellant, had received fatal injuries
2
and died between the night intervening 16/17.06.2020.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking,
in substance, cancellation of the order granting bail is that there
was a long standing rivalry between the deceased and the
respondent no. 2 and on 16.06.2020 evening itself there was a
scuffle between the two in which the deceased had received injuries
and he had lodged a complaint in his own handwriting with the
police station at 08.00 p.m. (which was registered subsequently on
the next date). After lodging FIR, the deceased had gone to the
hospital for treatment. It is contended that the respondent no. 2
also reached the hospital and according to the appellant, the call
records would show that he called his son to the hospital who then
attacked the deceased with knife causing grievous injuries on
account of which the deceased expired. It is further submitted that
in this background the bail applications of the respondent no. 2
were twice rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court has
granted the bail without considering these aspects and without
assigning any cogent reasons. It is also submitted that after being
released on bail there are allegations against the respondent no. 2
threatening the family members of the deceased. It is also
contended that the charges have now been framed against the
3
respondent no. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the
IPC.
Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of Haryana has supported the case of the
appellant and submitted that when twice the bail has been rejected
by the Trial Court with detailed reasons, the High Court ought to
have given proper reasons for granting bail and could not have
passed the order without assigning such reasons.
Per contra, Mr. Shishir Mathur, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 has submitted that the High Court has considered the
discrepancies with regard to the role assigned to the respondent no.
2 in the FIR and the statement of the complainant and has also
considered the CCTV footage which was filed before the High Court
and then granted bail.
We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State/respondent no.1, as well as Mr. Shishir
Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (accused) and
perused the record.
What we notice from the impugned order is that the High Court,
while granting bail, has only made the following observations and
4
passed the order for grant of bail:
“As per the FIR, the petitioner had allegedly caught
hold of the left hand of the deceased and Manish and
Piyush @ Passu had inflicted knife blows upon the
deceased, whereas the complainant got his
supplementary statement recorded by improving his
version that the petitioner and Deepak had come
running and asked the boy to kill him (deceased)
and ensure that he might not survive. The petitioner
has been in custody since 18.07.2020. Trial of the
case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars.”
It is settled law that when the Trial Court has dismissed the bail
application (and in the present case it has been dismissed twice),
what is expected from the High Court, while taking a view different
from that of the Trial Court, some cogent and valid reasons ought
to have been given for grant of bail. The nature of offence in the
present case is very grave. The fact that the son of the respondent
no. 2 had stabbed the deceased in the presence of the respondent
no. 2 is prima facie clear from the materials available before this
Court and the CCTV footage which was filed before the High Court.
The details of the phone calls made between the respondent no. 2
(accused no. 2) and his son (accused no. 1) are also on record. All
these factors ought to have been considered by the High Court
while passing the impugned order, which has not been done in the
present case.
5
Though an order for grant or rejection of plea for bail is a
discretionary remedy, several decisions of this Court have been
cited before us, which discusses the principles guiding this field of
law. In Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote &
Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 559] , it has been held that at that stage, Court
should be satisfied of a primafacie case and detailed examination
of evidence is not necessary for considering this question. In Ram
Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC
598] , this Court opined that once the High Court refuses bail, to
consider such plea and grant of bail subsequently must be
supported by reasons.
In the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of
Jaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 58] and
Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2022 (Sabir vs. Bhoora & Nadeem &
th
Anr.) decided on 15 February, 2022 by this very Bench, the need
of a bail order in serious offences to be supported by reason was
emphasised. Same view was taken by a Coordinate Bench in the
case of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2021) SCC
. This question had been dealt with in the case of
Online SC 1280]
X vs. State of Telangana and Anr. [(2018) 16 SCC 511].
6
In the present case, however, there were earlier two rejection
orders by the Court of Session but the High Court had granted bail
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the first
time its jurisdiction was invoked under that provision. In the case
of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and
Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528] , gravity of the offence alleged has been
held to be an important factor for considering the question of grant
of bail.
Judgments in the cases of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar
and
Pradesh and Anr. [(2020) 11 SCC 648] State of U.P. through
CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] deal with the
question of considering orders of the High Court granting bail by
this Court at the appellate stage. In Prabhakar Tewari (in which
one of us, Aniruddha Bose J. was a party), bail order by the High
Court was sustained as it was found by this Court that there was
no error in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail
to the accused persons. The offence, though, was grave and serious
and involved Section 302 of IPC. In the case of Amarmani Tripathi
(supra), postrelease conduct of the accused was considered. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court found that the High Court had
practically failed to take into consideration voluminous materials
7
collected by the investigating agency. In that perspective, the order
granting bail to the accused was set aside.
In the facts of the present case we have taken into consideration
the seriousness of the offence as well as the conduct of the
respondent no. 2. We also find that the respondent no. 2 in a
serious case like this remained in prison only for about four
months before bail was granted. There are allegations that the
family of the deceased had been threatened on behalf of the
respondent no. 2. We have taken into consideration the ratio of
different authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties and
are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court granting
bail to the respondent no. 2 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we allow this appeal
and quash the order of the High Court dated 17.11.2020.
No orders as to costs.
………………………………………………,J.
(VINEET SARAN)
………………………………………………,J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10,2022.
8
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1168/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-11-2020
in CRMM No. 37527/2020 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
PURAN MAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
IA No. 12099/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 15286/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 10-03-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ishaan George, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Kaushik, Addl. AG
Ms. Anju Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Shishir Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR)
(COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)