Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.97 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ..Respondent(S)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 06.10.2020 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.01.25
16:45:10 IST
Reason:
Bail Application Nos. 6294 of 2020 and 7992 of 2020 by
1
which the High Court has released respective respondents
No.2 herein on bail in connection with Case Crime No.203 of
2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC, P.S.
Barhaj, District Deoria, the original informant/complainant
– father of the deceased has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant herein lodged an FIR against respective
respondents No.2 and others for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and
34 of the IPC for murder of his son. Respective respondents
No.2 – accused applied to release them on bail before the
learned Sessions Courts/Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.
By detailed judgment(s) and order(s) dated 19.11.2019 and
22.01.2020, the learned Sessions Courts rejected the said
bail applications after perusing the case dairy and other
documents. The learned Sessions Courts observed that the
accused persons are named in the FIR and it has been
alleged that all the accused persons with a common
intention attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and
rod and killed the son of the complainant. The learned
Sessions Court noted that in the statement of witnesses
2
recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC the relevant witnesses
have given evidence in support of the incident. That
thereafter respective respondents No.2 approached the High
Court by way of present applications under Section 439
Cr.PC to release them on bail. By the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s), the High Court applied the wrong facts (which
has been demonstrated hereinbelow) and has released
respective respondents No.2 on bail.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court releasing
respective respondents No.2 on bail, the original
complainant – father of the deceased has preferred the
present appeals.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant – complainant has vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing
respective respondents No.2 on bail.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
while releasing respective respondents No.2 on bail, the
3
High Court has applied the wrong facts. It is submitted that
the High Court in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
has noted that the accused were not named in the FIR, but
their names have figured up during investigation. It is
submitted that aforesaid is factually incorrect. It is
submitted that respective respondents No.2 were named in
the FIR right from the beginning. It is submitted that it was
not the case on behalf of the accused that they were not
named in the FIR and that their names were figured up
during investigation. It is submitted that even the respective
learned Sessions Courts while rejecting the bail applications
have specifically noted that the accused were named in the
FIR.
4.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that the High Court has noted that
the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC
were recorded after inordinate delay of more than 20 days.
It is submitted that the same is factually incorrect. It is
submitted that as such the statements of the relevant
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the
very day of the incident.
4
4.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail the
High Court has not taken into consideration the gravity and
the nature of offences committed by the accused. It is
submitted that the High Court has not at all noted and/or
considered that the offence alleged was under Section 149
of the IPC also and therefore when it was found that all the
accused persons with a common intention attacked the
deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son
of the complainant, the individual role played by each
accused is insignificant and not a relevant consideration at
all.
4.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise as such except
noting the submissions made on behalf of the accused as
well as by learned Public Prosecutor and thereafter making
the general observations that keeping in view the nature of
the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
accused has made out a fit case for bail, no further reasons
are assigned. It is submitted that therefore the order(s)
passed by the High Court releasing respective respondents
5
No.2 – accused have been passed mechanically and without
proper application of mind and without considering the
relevant considerations of grant of bail as held by this Court
in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2018) 12 SCC 129 are not at all adhered to
and another;
and/or considered.
5. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG appearing
on behalf of the State has supported the appellant. It is
submitted that in such grave offences under Sections 302,
147, 148, 149 of the IPC, the High Court ought not to have
released the respective respondents No.2 on bail.
6. The present appeals are opposed by Shri Krishna M. Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused –
respective respondents No.2.
6.1 It is submitted that as such it was never the case on behalf
of the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or
that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161
Cr.PC were recorded at a later stage/belatedly. He has
taken us to the relevant averments made in the bail
applications.
6
6.2 It is submitted that however, when the role attributed to
respective respondents No.2 is that they used the wicket
and nothing is on record that they used any deadly weapon
and/or caused the injury on the vital part of the body of the
deceased, the High Court has not committed any error in
releasing respective respondents No.2 on bail more
particularly when respective respondents No.2 – accused
were in jail since 26.08.2019 and 05.09.2020, respectively
and that accused have no criminal antecedents.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective
respondents No.2 and other accused are chargesheeted for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC. That as per the case
of the complainant and the prosecution all the accused
including respective respondents No.2 herein with a
common intention attacked the deceased by sword, hockey,
stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. As per
the post mortem report, five injuries were found on the body
7
of the deceased and fracture in the occipital region of head
in right side and presence of hematoma in brain was found.
8.1 Despite the fact that all the accused persons were named in
the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the very day, on
applying the wrong facts, the High Court has released
respective respondents No.2 on bail. The High Court has
noted the submissions made on behalf of the accused,
which has been accepted by the High Court that the
accused were not named in the FIR and that their names
were disclosed during investigation and that the statements
of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded at a
later stage/belatedly. The aforesaid are factually incorrect.
Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused has submitted that it was not the case on behalf of
the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or
that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161
Cr.PC were recorded belatedly and/or at a later stage.
Therefore, it appears that the High Court has granted the
bail to respective respondents No.2 in such serious offences
8
in which one person was killed mechanically and without
applying the correct facts.
8.2 Even otherwise the High Court has not at all appreciated
the fact that all the accused were charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 also along
with Section 302 of the IPC and as noted by the learned
Sessions Court vide order dated 19.11.2019 that all the
accused persons with a common intention attacked the
deceased – Sumit Jaiswal by deadly weapons like sword,
hockey, stick and rod. The High Court has noted the
submissions made on behalf of the accused that role
attributed to respective respondents No.2 that using the
wicket as weapon it is difficult to decipher at that stage that
the accused have caused fatal injury over the person. When
the accused were charged for the offences punishable under
Section 149 of the IPC also and when their presence has
been established and it is stated that they were part of the
unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by
the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant.
8.3 Even otherwise the order(s) passed by the High Court
releasing respective respondents No.2 on bail in such
9
serious offences in which one person was killed is
unsustainable. The High Court has not adverted to the
gravity and nature of the offences at all. Even no reasons
are assigned by the High Court except observing in one
paragraph as under:
“The submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing
for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the
applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”
The aforesaid can hardly be said to be assigning the
reasons.
9. Even otherwise, the High Court has also not considered the
relevant considerations while grant of bail as observed and
held by this Court in the case of (supra).
Anil Kumar Yadav
In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court
that 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 ( ) likelihood of the accused fleeing from
iii
10
justice; ( iv ) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and ( v )
likelihood of his tampering. From the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s), it appears that the High Court has not at all
adverted to the relevant facts and/or considerations while
granting bail. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the
High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail
mechanically and on applying the wrong facts which even as
per the accused were not their cases. The impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) releasing respective respondents
No.2 on bail are unsustainable both on facts as well as on
law.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and
order(s) passed by the High Court releasing respective
respondents No.2 on bail are hereby quashed and set aside.
Now respondent No.2 – Pradyumn alias Pradumn alias
Deepak Gupta in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2022 and
respondent No.2 Shalu in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2022
to surrender forthwith. However, it is observed that the
observations made in the present order be confined for the
11
purpose of deciding the bail only and the learned Trial Court
shall proceed with the trial and decide the same in
accordance with law and on the basis of the evidences led
by both the sides. The present appeals are accordingly
allowed.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(Sanjiv Khanna)
New Delhi,
th
January, 25 2022
12