Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2022
Nitu Kumar …Appellant(s)
Versus
Gulveer & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 11120 of 2022, by which, the High Court
has directed to release respondent No. 1 – accused on bail
in connection with Case Crime No. 80 of 2021 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of Police Station
Rohata, District Meerut, the original complainant has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.16
15:18:41 IST
Reason:
preferred the present appeal.
1
2. That on 19.06.2021, on the report of the informant – Nitu
Kumar, an FIR being Case Crime No. 80/2021 under
Section 302 IPC of Police Station Rohata, District Meerut,
came to be registered against accused Shekhar, Gulveer
(respondent No. 1 herein) and one another person. During
the course of the investigation, statement of eyewitness –
Narender has been recorded. In his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., a specific role has been attributed to
respondent No. 1 that he caught hold of the deceased and
the coaccused Shekhar caused the injury on the neck of
the deceased. In the FIR, the motive was also alleged. That
respondent No. 1 came to be arrested on 24.06.2021. On
conclusion of the investigation and based on the
statements of informant, witnesses and on the basis of
evidence collected during the investigation, a chargesheet
has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC.
2.1 Respondent No. 1 – Gulveer filed a bail application before
the learned Trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the said bail application. Then, respondent No.
1 – Gulveer filed the present bail application before the
2
High Court. Before the High Court, it was mainly
contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 – accused that
the only role attributed to him is catching hold of the
deceased and the main role of causing injuries to the
deceased is assigned to the coaccused Shekhar. By the
impugned judgment and order without considering
seriousness and gravity of the offence committed and the
role attributed to respondent No. 1 – accused and without
assigning any reason and only by observing that
“ Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of
the accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the FIR,
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made
out a case for bail ” the High Court has released respondent
No. 1 on bail.
2.2 From the aforesaid it can be seen that nothing has been
discussed by the High Court on the role attributed to
3
respondent No. 1 – accused and his overt act in
commission of the offence. The High Court has not
appreciated that there is an eye witness, who has
categorically stated that respondent No. 1 caught hold of
the deceased. The High Court ought to have appreciated
that if respondent No. 1 would not have caught hold of the
deceased it would not have been possible for the co
accused Shekhar to cause injuries on the deceased.
Therefore, the High Court ought to have appreciated that
the role attributed to respondent No. 1 can be said to be
very serious like coaccused Shekhar. As per the settled
position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a
relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. The
High Court was required to consider the gravity and the
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations
against respondent No. 1 – accused. Under the
circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1 on bail for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is
unsustainable.
4
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1
accused on bail in Case Crime No. 80/2021 of Police
Station Rohata, District Meerut for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Now, respondent No. 1 Gulveer – accused shall surrender
before the concerned Court/Jail authority forthwith failing
which he be arrested by issuing nonbailable warrant.
However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court to
conduct the trial in accordance with law and on its own
merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it. The
present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
5