Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 399 of 2008
PETITIONER:
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC (CRL.) & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/2008
BENCH:
CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 399 2008
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 551 of 2006)
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. :
(1) Leave granted.
(2) The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 311/2002
registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 395 read with
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant moved
bail application before the Sessions Court and the same was
rejected on 18.10.2002. Thereafter, the appellant moved another
bail application on 29.10.2002 and the same was allowed on
7.11.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent herein
filed a criminal miscellaneous case before the High Court of
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. By the impugned order, the High
Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting
bail to the appellant. The main reason given by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court in cancelling the bail granted to the
appellant is that the first bail application was rejected on valid
grounds and just 19 days after the rejection of the first bail
application, the appellant herein had no ground to urge for bail as
there was no change in circumstances. It was also pointed out
that whatever grounds urged in the second bail application could
have been stated in the first bail application and the reasons given
for grant of bail by the Sessions Judge in the second bail
application were in utter violation of the settled principles of
judicial propriety.
(3) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(4) A sessions case is pending trial against the appellant. There
was an allegation that the appellant herein attempted to cause
death of one person who was arrayed as a prosecution witness and
a case was registered against the appellant. It is also pointed out
that the appellant herein made an attempt on the life of brother of
the second respondent herein and for that also a case had been
registered against the appellant under Section 307 IPC. It is
further pointed out that a series of crimes have been registered
against the appellant.
(5) Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant, pointed out that all these cases have been registered
on account of political rivalry and many of such cases were closed
by the investigating agency when they were found baseless. The
list of cases has been furnished by the learned counsel appearing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant also pointed out that even against the second respondent
several cases are pending and he had no right to move for
cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant.
(6) When the matter was pending before us, we repeatedly
adjourned the case with the expectation that the important
witnesses would be examined by the prosecution and the trial
would be completed at an early date. The trial is being continued
and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this time.
If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli is
directed to complete the same within a period of three months and,
if for any reason, except the non-cooperation of the accused, the
trial is delayed beyond three months, the appellant
would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for bail and,
without being influenced by the observations made by the High
Court in the impugned order, the same would be considered by the
Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate order shall be passed.
(7) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.