BRIJMANI DEVI vs. PAPPU KUMAR

1 REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.6335 OF 2021) BRIJMANI DEVI      …..APPELLANT(S)  VERSUS PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.       ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.              OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.7916 OF 2021) O R D E R NAGARATHNA J.  Leave granted.  2. These   appeals   have   been   preferred   by   the   informant   ­ appellant assailing the orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021 Signature Not Verified passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.12.17 16:56:11 IST Reason: Miscellaneous   Nos.11683   of   2021   and   26463   of   2021 2 respectively whereby bail has been granted to the accused who is the   common   respondent   in   the   appeals,   in   connection   with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No.316 of 2017 respectively.  3. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the mother of   the   deceased   Rupesh   Kumar.   She   is   stated   to   be   an eyewitness to the killing of her son and also the person who lodged the First Information Report being FIR No.93 of 2020 for offence of murder of her son under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and section 27 of the Arms Act against common respondent­accused herein viz., Pappu Kumar and one other person named Deepak Kumar.  4. That FIR No.93/2020 dated 19.02.2020 is stated to have been filed by the appellant herein between 2.30 hrs and 3.00 hrs in the night stating that her son Rupesh Kumar aged about 35 years was sleeping in the room constructed on the roof top of her house. A relative, Deepak Kumar was also sleeping there. She was   sleeping   in   another   room   which   is   beside   the   aforesaid room. She has further stated that she heard the sound of a person   walking   and   also   talking   and   then   she   saw   that respondent–accused was present and he had a pistol in his hand 3 and when he saw her, he caught her and forcefully tied her mouth with his Gamchha (towel) and he shot her son on the head from his pistol in front of her and Deepak Kumar too shot once at her son’s head. As a result, her son died. Other family members reached the spot upon hearing the firing sound. But the accused ran away waiving their pistols.  5. Earlier, FIR No.316 of 2017 was lodged at Police Station Parsa Bazar by appellant’s deceased son himself viz., Rupesh Kumar for causing serious bullet injury to him, under sections 341, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, by giving a   ferdbeyan   against the very same respondent­ accused herein and his two acquaintances to K.K. Verma, ASI, Shashtri Nagar PS, District Patna, on 28.12.2017 at 7.57 pm at Emergency   Ward,   Paras   Hospital,   Patna.   This   ferdbeyan   was given in respect of an incident which occurred on the previous day   i.e.   27.12.2017   when   he   had   gone   to   meet   his   friend Shailendra at Sipara. While Rupesh Kumar was returning from his friend’s house, the respondent­accused along with his two acquaintances   caught   him   and   respondent­accused   fired   and caused  bullet injury  to  him.    When  Rupesh Kumar   ran  and reached a farmer’s house in the nearby village and narrated the 4 entire story to him, he was taken to the police station on a motorcycle and had lodged FIR No.316/2017. 6. According to the appellant, the respondent­accused herein had attempted to kill her son viz., Rupesh Kumar in the year 2017 by firing at him and an FIR was lodged being FIR No.316 of 2017. But after lodging FIR No. 93 of 2020, the respondent­ accused had absconded for about seven months. He had also threatened  the  appellant   herein  and  exerted  pressure  on  the appellant­informant and her family to withdraw the complaint, failing   which   he   would   eliminate   the   entire   family.     That   a written complaint of the appellant dated 30.09.2020 was filed to the police, in pursuance of  which complaint the respondent­ accused   was   nabbed   in   connection   with   murder   of   Rupesh Kumar.  7. While   on   the   run   respondent­accused   was   arrested   on 30.09.2020.   The   respondent­accused   has   been   in   judicial custody for a period of nine months till he was granted bail by the High Court.  8. In fact, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patna, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the   respondent­accused   herein   in   connection   with   FIR 5 No.316/2017. An order of remand to judicial custody was passed in   connection   with   Naubatpur   P.S.   Case   No.316/2017   under section 307 of IPC on 06.01.2021.  9. That the accused made an application seeking bail before the   Sessions   Court,   which   was   rejected   by   the   Additional Sessions   Judge­I,   Danapur   by   Order   dated   08.12.2020. Thereafter, the respondent­accused filed an application for grant of   bail   by   suppressing   his   criminal   antecedents   and   by   the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, the High Court granted him bail in connection with the case being FIR No.93/2020 registered at   Naubatpur   P.S.   for   offence   under   section   302   read   with section 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, subject to certain conditions.  10. Subsequently,   the   High   Court,   vide   order   dated 13.09.2021,   also   granted   bail   to   respondent­accused   in connection   with   the   other   case   being   FIR   No.316/2017 registered at Parsa Bazar P.S.  for offences under sections 341, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these appeals before this Court.  6 11. We have heard Sri Smarhar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant   and   Sri   R.   Basant,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for respondent­accused and perused the material on record.  12. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the respondent­accused   has   been   named   in   eight   cases.   Even though, the said accused may have been acquitted in a few cases, there are still three cases pending against him. He had attempted unsuccessfully   to   kill   the   deceased   Rupesh   Kumar   in   the year 2017. Later in the year 2020, he killed the deceased and absconded for about seven months. The mother of the deceased appellant herein, is the informant and she has been threatened by respondent. He was in judicial custody only for a period of nine months as  he  had earlier  absconded  but  has now  been granted bail by the High Court contrary to the settled principles of law and the judgments of this Court.  13. Further it is urged that the High Court has not assigned reasons   for   grant   of   bail   in   the   instant   cases   whereas   the respondent­accused is alleged to have committed heinous crimes which could result in life imprisonment or even death penalty. Respondent­accused, being a habitual offender, could not have been granted bail by the High Court. According to the learned 7 counsel for the appellant, the High Court in a very cryptic order de   hors   any   reasoning   has   granted   bail   to   the   respondent­ accused. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, who is mother of the deceased, to allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned orders. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on certain decisions of this Court which shall be referred to later. 14. Per   contra,   Sri   Basant,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the respondent­accused,   supported   the   impugned   orders   and contended that accused no.2 in the case is the brother­in­law of the deceased and both of them were accused in another case in which the respondent­accused herein has been enlisted as a witness. The deceased and Deepak Kumar – accused no.2 were living together in the same house. He may have fired at the deceased but not the respondent­accused herein. This is a case of false implication of the respondent­accused by the informant. 15.   That the gun was recovered from accused no.2 and there has   been   no   recovery   made   from   respondent­accused.   There have been several cases against the deceased and accused no.2 also.  8 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent­accused further contended that respondent­accused was 350 kms away on the th th intervening night of 18  and 19  February, 2020. He was not at the spot of the crime at all. This is evident from the mobile phone details. Therefore, the High Court was justified in considering these aspects and granting bail to the respondent­accused.   17. In support of his submission, Sri Basant, learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance on  Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh  ­ (1978) 1 ,   which   prescribes   the   approach   of   a   Court   while SCC   240 granting bail. The Court considering an application seeking bail cannot enter into an in­depth analysis of the case so as to hold a mini trial  of the case. It  is also unnecessary  to  give lengthy reasons at the time of granting bail. It was contended that bail is the norm and jail is the exception. Once bail has been granted by a Court, it is only in very rare cases that there is interference as it would have the effect of cancellation of bail. That the liberty of   a   person   cannot   be   interfered   with   unless   the   situation warrants.   18. It   was   further   submitted   that   learned   counsel   for   the appellant   was   not   right   in   contending   that   the   respondent 9 ­accused   had   absconded.   In   fact,   there   was   no   chargesheet against him. It was only when a protest petition was filed, that a chargesheet was filed against him and he was arrested.  19. It was further submitted that the allegations against the respondent­accused are false and hence the impugned orders of the High Court do not call for any interference in these appeals.  20. Having   regard   to   the   contention   of   Sri   Smarhar   Singh, learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   the   impugned   orders granting   bail   to   the   respondent­accused   are   bereft   of   any reasoning and they are cryptic and bail has been granted in a casual   manner,   we   extract   those   portions   of   the   impugned nd th orders dated 22  July, 2021 and 13  September, 2021 passed by the High Court, which provides the “reasoning” of the Court for granting bail, as under :  “Impugned Order dated 22.7.2021 During course of investigation, it has come that at the time   and   date   of   occurrence   petitioner   was   at   Araria. Petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2020. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the   fact   that   false   implication   against   the   petitioner cannot   be   rule   out,   the   petitioner   above­named,   is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/­ (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna  in connection  with 10 Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020, subject to following conditions: (i) The   petitioner   shall   co­operate   in   the   trial and   shall   be   properly   represented   on   each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court   and   in   the   event   of   failure   on   two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below. (ii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the   witnesses   of   the   case,   in   that   case, prosecution   will   be   at   liberty   to   move   for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.” Impugned Order dated 13.09.2021  “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2021, let the petitioner,   mentioned   above,   be   enlarged   on   bail   on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/­ (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Judge­VIII, Patna, in connection with Parza Bazar P.S. Case No. 316/2017, subject to the following conditions: (1)  Petitioner shall co­operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date   fixed   by   the   Court   and   shall   remain physically present as directed by the Court and on   his/her   absence   on   two   consecutive   dates without   sufficient   reason,   his/her   bail   bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (2)   If   the   petitioner   tampers   with   the evidence   or   the   witnesses,   in   that   case,   the prosecution   will   be   at   liberty   to   move   for cancellation of bail.” 11 21. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of this Court in the matter of granting bail to an accused as under: a) In   (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., while Gudikanti Narasimhulu elaborating on the content and meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has also elaborated the factors that have   to   be   considered   while   granting   bail   which   are extracted as under: “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8.   Another   relevant   factor   is   as   to   whether   the course   of   justice   would   be   thwarted   by   him   who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court   considering   the   likelihood   of   the   applicant interfering   with   witnesses   for   the   prosecution   or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only   traditional   but   rational,   in   this   context,   to enquire   into   the   antecedents   of   a   man   who   is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record –  particularly   a  record  which  suggests  that  he  is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard   to   habituals,   it   is   part   of   criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee   to   exploit   the   opportunity   to   inflict   further about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” b) Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS  – (2001) 4 SCC 280  is a case wherein this Court proceeded to state 12 the following principles which are to be considered while granting bail:  “(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b)   Reasonable   apprehensions   of   the   witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being   a   threat   for   the   complainant   should   also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c)   While   it   is   not   expected   to   have   the   entire evidence   establishing   the   guilt   of   the   accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always   be considered   and   it   is   only   the   element   of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being   some   doubt   as   to   the   genuineness   of   the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” c) This   Court   in   Ram   Govind   Upadhyay   vs.   Sudarshan  (2002) 3 SCC 598,  speaking through Banerjee, J., Singh – observed as under: 

13

d)  In   Kalyan  Chandra   Sarkar   vs.   Rajesh   Ranjan   alias Pappu Yadav & Anr.   – (2004) 7 SCC 528 , this Court observed in paragraph 11 as under : “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very   well   settled.   The   court   granting   bail   should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as   a   matter   of   course.   Though   at   the   stage   of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate   documentation   of   the   merit   of   the  case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.   Any   order   devoid   of   such   reasons   would suffer   from   non   ­application   of   mind.   It   is   also necessary   for   the   court   granting   bail   to   consider among   other   circumstances,   the   following   factors also before granting bail; they are: a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c)   Prima   facie   satisfaction   of   the   court   in support   of   the   charge.   (See   Ram   Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338. ” 14 e) Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.   etc.   etc.   –   (2008)   3   SCC   775,   is   a   case   which concerns cancellation of bail by this Court in a petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the said case reliance was placed on  Panchanan Mishra vs.  wherein in para 13 Digambar Mishra  – (2005) 3 SCC 143 it was observed as under: 

Further   on   referring   to   the   State   of   UP   vs. – (2005) 8 SCC 21 , this Court noted Amarmani Tripathi  the   facts   of   the   case   therein   to   the   effect   that   the respondent therein had been named in ten other criminal cases in the last 25 years or so, out of which five cases were under section 307 IPC for attempt to murder and another   under   section   302   IPC   for   committing   murder. That in most of the cases he was acquitted for want of 15 sufficient evidence. Without saying anything further this Court   noted   that   the   High   Court   in   the   said   case completely ignored the general principle for grant of bail in a heinous crime of commission of murder in which the sentence, if convicted, is death or life imprisonment.  It was further observed that in the impugned order therein the findings recorded touched upon the merits of the case and the learned Judge had proceeded as if an order of acquittal was being passed, contrary to what had been said in  Amarmani Tripathi  which is that only a brief examination has to be made to satisfy about the facts and circumstances or a prima facie case.  f) This Court in   Ash  Mohammad  vs.  Shiv   Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu & Anr. – (2012) 9 SCC 446 , observed that though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents. That these are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire and   that   societal   concern   has   to   be   kept   in   view   in juxtaposition to individual liberty, was underlined. 16 g) In   – (2016) 15 SCC Neeru Yadav vs.  State of UP & Anr.  after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court 422, on the consideration of factors for grant of bail observed through  Dipak  Misra,  J.  (as  His   Lordship  then  was)  in paragraphs 15 and 18 as under:  “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless   sky   that   the   High   Court   has   totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What   has   weighed   with   the   High   Court   is   the doctrine of parity. A history­sheeter involved in the nature   of   crimes   which   we   have   reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The   law   expects   the   judiciary   to   be   alert   while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion   judiciously   and   not   in   a   whimsical manner.  x x x  18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant   factors   have   not   been   taken   into consideration   which   includes   the   criminal antecedents   of   the   accused   and   that   makes   the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order.” h)     In  Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)  – (2018) 12 SCC 129 , this Court has spelt out some of the significant 17 considerations  which  must   be  placed   in   the  balance  in deciding whether to grant bail:  “17.   While   granting   bail,   the   relevant considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the offence;   (ii)   character   of   the   evidence   and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and   (iii)   likelihood   of   the   accused   fleeing   from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on  the  prosecution  witnesses, its  impact  on  the society;   and   (v)   likelihood   of   his   tampering.   No doubt,   this   list   is   not   exhaustive.   There   are   no hard­and­fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits.   The   matter   always   calls   for   judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.” i) Recently in  Bhoopindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.  (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021) ,  this Court has observed as under in the matter of exercise of an appellate power to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons as distinct from an application for cancellation of bail by quoting   Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar   ­ (2020) 2 SCC 118 : “16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order   granting   bail  stand   on   a   different   footing from   an   assessment   of   an   application   for   the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting   bail   is   tested   on   the   anvil   of   whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the   order   granting   bail   is   perverse,   illegal   or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil   of   the   existence   of   supervening 18 circumstances or  violations  of the conditions  of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.”  22. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi­judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in   Kranti   Associates   Private   Limited   &   Anr.   Vs.   Masood ,   wherein   after Ahmed   Khan   &   Ors.   –   (2010)   9   SCC   496 referring to a number of judgments this Court summarised at paragraph 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under: 

19

23. Though   the   aforesaid   judgment   was   rendered   in   the context of a dismissal of a revision petition by a cryptic order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reliance 20 could   be   placed   on   the   said   judgment   on   the   need   to   give reasons while deciding a matter.    24. The Latin maxim “ cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex ” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any   particular   law   ceases,   so   does   the   law   itself”,   is   also apposite.  25. While   we   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   liberty   of   an individual   is   an   invaluable   right,   at   the   same   time   while considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a   prima facie   conclusion. While considering   an   application   for   grant   of   bail   a   prima   facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any,   and   the   nature   of   punishment   that   would   follow   a conviction vis­à­vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.   21 26. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orders   above.   At   the   outset,   we   observe   that   the   extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments,   it   is   not   necessary   for   a   Court   to   give   elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would   not   have   been   crystalised   as   such.   There   cannot   be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one  that  would  result  in  a   conviction  or,  by  contrast,  in  an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail.   At   the   same   time,   a   balance   would   have   to   be   struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering   of   the   evidence;   the   frivolity   in   the   case   of   the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.  22 27. Ultimately, the Court considering an application for bail has   to   exercise   discretion   in   a   judicious   manner   and   in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other.  28. Thus, while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order   de hors   reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. It would be only a non speaking order which is an instance of violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice.   In   such   a   case   the prosecution  or  the  informant   has  a   right   to  assail  the  order before a higher forum.  29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we shall now consider the facts of the present case. The allegations against respondent­ accused as well as the contentions raised at the Bar have been narrated in detail above. On a consideration of the same, the following aspects of the case would emerge: a) Allegations   against   the   respondent­accused   are   under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in respect of FIR No. 316 of 2017 lodged at Police Station Parsa Bazar which is with 23 regard to attempt to murder Rupesh Kumar the injured, who   had   himself   given   the   Ferdbayan   against   the respondent ­ accused herein. The other case, namely, FIR No. 93 of 2020 is with regard to the offence of murder of appellant’s   son   Rupesh   Kumar   under   Section   302   read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against   respondent­accused   herein   and   accused   no.2 Deepak Kumar. Thus, offences alleged against respondent­ accused herein are serious offences vis­a­vis the very same Rupesh   Kumar   at   two   points   of   time,   namely,   in   2017 when   attempt   to   murder   him   is   alleged   and   in   2020 allegation   of   murder   has   been   cast   by   the   appellant, mother of the deceased who is stated to be an eyewitness. Thus, the allegations against the respondent ­ accused vis­ a­vis   the   same   person,   namely,   the   informant   Rupesh Kumar in both the cases. b) According   to   the   respondent­accused,   there   has   been   a history of enmity between the accused and the deceased.  c) The accusation against the respondent­accused is that he shot Rupesh Kumar with a fire arm, namely, a pistol on two occasions.  24 d) The respondent­accused herein has been named in about eight cases and though he may have been acquitted in a few  of  them,  there  are  still  cases  pending   against   him. Thus, it is inferred that respondent­accused has criminal antecedents.  e) It has also come on record that the respondent ­ accused had   absconded   for   a   period   of   seven   months   after   the complaint   in   respect   of   the   second   offence   was   lodged against him. Therefore, his arrest was delayed.   f) It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent­ accused   had   threatened   the   informant   mother   of   the deceased.  g) Thus,   there   is   a   likelihood   of   the   respondent­accused absconding or threatening the witnesses if on bail which would have a vital bearing on the trial of the cases. h) Also, for securing the respondent­accused herein for the purpose of commencement of the trial in right earnest in both   the   cases,   as   the   accused   had   earlier   absconded, discretion could not have been exercised in favour of the respondent­accused in the instant cases.  25 i) In the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, the High Court has noted that there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the petitioner with regard to contesting an Election as Mukhiya of Chhotki Tangraila Gram Panchayat but this fact has not been taken into consideration in the context   of   the   allegation   against   the   accused   and   with regard to grant of bail.  30. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the judgments referred to above, we do not think   that   these   cases   are   fit   cases   for   grant   of   bail   to respondent­accused in respect of the two serious accusations against him  vis­à­vis  the  very   same  person  namely  deceased Rupesh Kumar.  31. The High court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and in very cryptic orders has granted bail to the respondent­accused. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondent­accused. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside. The appeals are allowed.  26 32. The respondent­accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.   ……………………………..J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]  …………………………….J. [B.R. GAVAI] ……………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI;  TH 17  DECEMBER, 2021.