Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1150 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1523 of 2019)
Mauji Ram ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.11511152 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.15251526 of 2019)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.11531156 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.47954798 of 2019)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.07.29
18:00:11 IST
Reason:
dated 17.01.2019 in CRMBA No.1859 of 2019,
dated 24.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3574/2019, dated
1
29.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3547/2019, dated
06.02.2019 in CRMBA No.4627/2019, dated
18.02.2019 in CRMBA No.6450/2019, dated
12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated
26.03.2019 in CRMBA No.11793 of 2019 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of these appeals, which involve a short
point.
4. Respondent No.2 in all the appeals, namely,
Subhash, Kartar, Sohit, Amarjeet, Soran Bhati,
Lilu@Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total7), herein
after collectively referred to as “respondents” are
facing trial for commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 302, 120
B, 307, 323, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) which arise
out of Crime No. 608/2018 registered with P.S.
Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP) pending
2
in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh
Nagar in BA No. 5808 of 2018UPGB01
002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018UPGB01
003006/2018, B.A. No.6295/2018UPGB0100
3536/2018, B.A. No.6738/2018UPGB0100
4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB0100
4694/2018. These respondents were apprehended
for committing the murder of one Sumit Kumar
son of the appellantComplainant.
5. The respondents (accused persons) after they
were apprehended applied for grant of bail before
the Sessions Court in the aforementioned trial. The
Sessions Judge by order dated 20.11.2018 in BA
No. 5808 of 2018UPGB01002290/2018, B.A.
No.6097/2018UPGB01003006/2018, order dated
22.11.2018 in B.A. No.6295/2018UPGB0100
3536/2018 and order dated 08.01.2019 in B.A.
No.6738/2018UPGB0100 4693/2018 & B.A.
3
No.6739/2018 UPGB0100 4694/2018 rejected the
bail applications of the respondents.
6. The respondents felt aggrieved by the rejection
of their bail applications and filed the bail
applications under Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Code”) in the High Court of Allahabad. By
impugned orders, the High Court allowed the bail
applications and accordingly directed release of the
respondents on bail on their furnishing security and
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
7. It is against these orders of the High Court, the
father of the deceased has felt aggrieved and filed
these appeals questioning the legality and
correctness of the impugned orders.
8. So far as the State is concerned, they have
supported the appellant by filing counter affidavit.
The respondents (accused persons) are also served
and duly represented.
4
9. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in granting bail to the
respondents (accused).
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow the appeals and while
setting aside the impugned orders dismiss the bail
applications filed by the respondents(accused
persons). The impugned order reads as under:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case
for bail.
Let the applicant Subhash involved in Case
Crime No.608 of 2018 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 506, 427, 307, 302, 120B IPC,
P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the
evidence.
5
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the
prosecution witnesses and shall
cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date
fixed by the trial court unless personal
appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions
mentioned above, the trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.”
12 . In our considered opinion, the High Court
committed jurisdictional error in passing the
impugned order because while passing the
impugned order, the High Court did not assign any
reason whatsoever as to on what grounds, even
though of a prima facie nature, it considered just
and proper to grant bail to the respondents.
13. Time and again this Court has emphasized the
need for assigning the reasons while granting bail
(see Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(2005) 7 SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P.
(2008) 16 SCC 753 &
& Anr., Dataram Singh vs.
State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22). Though it
may not be necessary to give categorical finding
6
while granting or rejecting the bail for want of full
evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the
defence at that stage yet it must appear from a
perusal of the order that the Court has applied its
mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material
filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration
of bail application. It is unfortunate that neither
the law laid down by this Court, nor the material
filed by the prosecution was taken note of by the
High Court while considering the grant of bail to the
respondents.
14. We have perused the petitions with annexures,
the counter affidavit with annexures filed by the
State and also by the accused persons.
15. Having perused the FIR and keeping in view
the antecedents of the accused persons which are
brought on record by the State in their counter
affidavit and further keeping in view the manner in
which the offence under Section 302 IPC was
7
committed, we are prima facie of the view that this
is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused
persons (respondent No.2 herein in all the appeals).
These factors were relevant while considering the
bail application and, in our view, they were not
taken into consideration.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents (accused
persons) vehemently opposed the appeals and urged
that having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances emerging from the record of the case
and the fact that the respondents (accused persons)
have not violated any condition of grant of bail till
date, this Court should not interfere in the
impugned orders granting bail to the respondents.
17. We do not agree with this submission. In our
view, taking into consideration the entire scenario of
the case, this was not a fit case for grant of bail to
the respondents(accused persons) by the High
Court. The Sessions Judge, in our opinion, was,
8
therefore, right in rejecting the bail applications
filed by the respondents.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned
orders are set aside. The bail applications filed by
the respondents (accused persons) are dismissed.
19. As a consequence thereof, the
respondents(accused persons) in all the appeals are
directed to surrender in the concerned Sessions
Court for being taken into custody as under trial.
20. We, however, make it clear that the Sessions
Judge will decide the trial strictly in accordance
with law on its merits expeditiously without being
influenced by any observation made in this order.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
July 29, 2019.
9