Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3285/2021)
Laxman Prasad Pandey .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
WITH
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6611/2021
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6569/2021
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1552 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.3226/2021
CRL.APPEAL NOs. 15541555 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5605
5606/2021
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1553 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5539/2021
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6061/2021
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2021.12.11
13:19:25 IST
Reason:
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1
The three appeals of the first set, all titled Laxman
1.
Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. bearing
Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.3285/2021); Criminal Appeal No.15541555/2021
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.56055606/2021) and Criminal
Appeal No.1553/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
5539/2021) arise against the orders dated 16.03.2021,
17.12.2020 and 19.03.2021 and 26.07.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail Application
No.1694 of 2021, Bail Application No.9559 of 2020, Bail
Application No. 11 of 2021 and Bail Application No.3876 of
2021. The accused in the above said cases are Anjani
Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar
Maurya.
2. The second set of four appeals, titled Laxman Prasad
Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. bearing Criminal
Appeal No.1556/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061/
2021); Vishnu Prasad Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Anr.;
Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
2
No.3226/2021; Subhash Saini and Pramod Prasad Pandey
vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1558/2021
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and Ratnakar
Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Anr.;
Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.6569/2021) arise against the separate orders, all dated
23.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in A.B. No.5003 of 2020, A.B
No.276 of 2021 and A.B. No.5370 of 2020 respectively.
3. In the first set of three appeals, the complainant
Laxman Prasad Pandey has assailed the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court enlarging the
accused on bail, in case relating to FIR No.406 of 2020. In
the second set of four appeals, the appellants therein have
assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the petitions filed by them seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.407 of 2020. The
above noted two sets of cases were tagged, heard together
and are therefore being disposed of by this common
judgment, since the issue in these appeals pertain to the
same incident which is alleged to have occurred on
3
08.05.2020 within the jurisdiction of the Kotwali City Police
Station, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh.
4. The brief facts to be noted for the purpose of disposal
of these appeals indicate that Laxman Prasad Pandey had
reported with a complaint to the jurisdictional Police on
09.05.2020 at 16:30 hours about the incident. The same
was registered in FIR No.406 of 2020. In the said complaint,
he had alleged that he along with his brother Ram Prasad
Pandey, Subhash Saini, Surendra Tiwari and others went to
the plot situated in Marut Nagar where Sarvesh Tiwari,
Anand Tiwari @ Vivek and others named in the complaint
along with certain other unknown persons were present.
Complainant went there to seek return of the money he had
given earlier to Sarvesh Tiwari. It is alleged that Sarvesh
Tiwari and others were armed with repeater, pistol and rifle.
When the complainant reached there, he and his associates
were asked to sit on the chairs. The complainant at that
point asked for return of his money. At that stage Aditya
Singh @ Major and the other persons named in the
complaint exhorted to attack the complainant and his
associates by shouting “Mar Dalo Salo Ko”. The said Aditya
4
Singh and Monu are alleged to have caught hold of the
appellants’ brother and snatched his licensed pistol, while
Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and others
who were armed with weapons started firing on the
complainant and his brother. They ran helterskelter and in
the melee, appellant’s brother Ram Prasad Pandey fell
down since he suffered firearm injuries. His brother was
taken to the District Hospital, from where he was referred to
Allahabad Swaroop Rani Hospital when he breathed his last
during the treatment. In that light, the FIR was registered
against the persons named therein which include the private
respondents in the first set of the three appeals, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and 120B IPC and
Section 27/30 of Arms Act. It is in the said proceedings, the
accused Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and
Raj Kumar Maurya had filed petitions under Section 439
Cr.PC seeking grant of bail. The same being allowed by the
High Court, the complainant is before this Court seeking
that the order be set aside.
5. In respect of the same incident alleged to have
occurred on 08.05.2020 yet another FIR bearing No.407 of
5
2020 was registered based on the complaint lodged by
Sarvesh Tiwari on 12.05.2020 at 16:14 hours. In the said
complaint, it was stated by Sarvesh Tiwari that he is a
resident of Sagra Village and he works as a property dealer
in Ranjitpur Chilbila. He has alleged that on 08.05.2020,
the brokers of the land belonging to Ram Prasad Pandey,
Laxman Prasad Pandey, Vishnu Pandey being accompanied
with the others named in the complaint and being armed
with illegal weapons came there. Due to previous enmity,
with the intention to kill them started indiscrete firing on
the complainant and the others present. His cousin brother
Anand Tiwari and also Rahul Tiwari @ Monu and Anjani
Shukla sustained gunshot injuries and fell to the ground.
The attacking party had presumed them to be dead and
went away abusing them. In that view, the complainant
sought action against them. The said crime No.407 of 2020
was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. In the
second set of appeals relating to the said FIR No.407 of
2020, the persons accused therein namely Laxman Prasad
Pandey, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, Pramod
Pandey, Ratnakar Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra filed
6
petitions before the High Court under Section 438 of IPC
seeking grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected.
The rejection of the anticipatory bail by the learned Single
Judge is assailed in the second set of appeals.
As already indicated, since all the above noted
6.
appeals arise out of the same alleged incident dated
08.05.2020 and the nature of consideration would be the
same in all these cases, they are considered together.
We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior
7.
counsel along with Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for
the appellants, Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for
the State of U.P. and Mr. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel
for the private respondents in all these appeals.
The learned senior counsel for the appellants has
8.
taken us through the contents of FIR No.406 of 2020 and in
that light has pointed out to the postmortem report dated
09.05.2020 wherein the contents reveal that Ram Prasad
Pandey, the deceased brother of the complainant had
suffered external injuries such as, wound caused by firearm.
In that light, it is contended that when the case registered
against the accused is for the grave offences which include
7
the offence under Section 302 IPC and the provisions of the
Arms Act, the learned Single Judge ought to have
appropriately recorded his satisfaction before exercising the
discretion to enlarge on bail. It is contended that in the
instant case, the learned Single Judge except referring to the
rival contention has not analysed the same for recording his
satisfaction. Observations of a general nature is made and
ordered to enlarge the accused on bail. It is contended that
such consideration is contrary to the position of law
enunciated by this Court in the case of
Mahipal vs. Rajesh
Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118. The learned
counsel had also made detailed reference to the other
material on record to contend that the order to enlarge the
accused on bail, in FIR No.406 of 2020 is liable to be set
aside.
9. Insofar as the appeals filed by the accused in case
relating to FIR No.407 of 2020 Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants therein
contended that the said complaint is filed only as a counter
blast. It was an afterthought and filed as late as on
8
12.05.2020. Though in the FIR the alleged offence is
registered under Section 307 IPC as well, the medical
certificate relating to Anand Tiwari who is stated to be
injured as per the complainant, has suffered only simple
injuries caused due to hard and blunt object. In such event,
when the persons named in the said FIR are available to
cooperate in the investigation, the petition filed by them
seeking anticipatory bail ought to have been appropriately
considered by the learned Single Judge and anticipatory bail
ought to have been granted. It is further contended that the
receipts dated 28.05.2018 and 29.06.2018 would indicate
that Sarvesh Tiwari had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/
(Rupees three lakhs) from Laxman Prasad Pandey which
was to be returned. He and his brother were attacked when
they legitimately sought return of the money. In that
circumstance, Sarvesh Tiwari and others named in FIR
No.406 of 2020 are the aggressors. In such event, there is
no reason to deny the appellants the benefit of anticipatory
bail sought by the appellants.
10. The learned counsel for the private respondents with
reference to the counteraffidavit filed on their behalf sought
9
to contend that the learned Single Judge having taken note
of the contentions relating to the case in FIR No.406 of 2020
and also the period of incarceration had granted bail to the
accused which is justified. It is contended that when the
learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion, the same
would not call for interference.
11. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the State,
with reference to the factual aspects has contended that
though two FIRs are registered, as evident, the matter
relates to the same incident dated 08.05.2020 where there
has been a group clash by using firearms which resulted in
indiscriminate firing. As such, in either case the accused in
both the set of cases are not entitled to be released on bail.
The learned counsel has also referred to the criminal history
of the persons involved. It is contended that the
investigation in the case relating to FIR No.407 of 2020
could not be concluded as the accused did not cooperate
after obtaining interim protection in the appeal seeking
anticipatory bail. Further, the injured person is still
undergoing treatment. Hence, the learned counsel seeks
that the bail granted to the accused in Crime No.406 of
10
2020 be cancelled and the appeals relating to FIR No.407 of
2020 be dismissed.
12. In the above backdrop, a perusal of the order dated
16.03.2021 in the proceedings relating to FIR No.406 of
2020 in Bail Application No.1694 of 2021 indicates that the
learned Judge though has taken note of details of the
incident and the contention of the learned counsel for the
parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction
to enlarge the accused on bail. The ultimate reason and
conclusion adopted by the learned Single Judge reads as
hereunder:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, and also considering the nature of
allegations, arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, the period for which he
is in jail and without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
enlarging the applicant on bail.”
The nature of consideration is similar in the order dated
17.12.2020 and 26.07.2021 passed in Bail Application
Nos.9559 of 2020 and 3876 of 2021 relating to the other two
accused in FIR No.406 of 2020.
13. In that background, a perusal of the decision
rendered by a Two Judge Bench of this Court in
Mahipal
11
(supra) authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reads as
hereunder:
“24. There is another reason why the
judgment of the learned Single Judge has
fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of
judicial discipline for an order granting or
rejecting bail to record the reasons which
have weighed with the court for the exercise
of its discretionary power. In the present
case, the assessment by the High Court is
essentially contained in a single para which
reads:
“4. Considering the contentions
put forth by the counsel for the
petitioner and taking into account
the facts and circumstances of the
case and without expressing
opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court deems it just and proper
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”
25. Merely recording “having perused the
record” and “on the facts and circumstances of
the case” does not subserve the purpose of a
reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental
premise of open justice, to which our judicial
system is committed, that factors which have
weighed in the mind of the Judge in the
rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in
the order passed. Open justice is premised on
the notion that justice should not only be
done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly
be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give
reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this
commitment. Questions of the grant of bail
concern both liberty of individuals undergoing
criminal prosecution as well as the interests of
the criminal justice system in ensuring that
12
those who commit crimes are not afforded the
opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are
dutybound to explain the basis on which they
have arrived at a conclusion.”
14. While arriving at such conclusion in the case of
(supra), the Hon’ble Bench of this Court had inter
Mahipal
alia referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Kalyan
(2004) 7 SCC 528
Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
wherein another Bench of this Court, authored by Justice
Santosh Hegde had held as hereunder:
“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 .”
15. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is
noticed that the conclusion recorded by the learned Single
Judge extracted supra is almost verbatim similar to the
portion which is extracted and disapproved by this Court in
13
Mahipal’s case noted supra. It is noticed that with such
sweeping observation made by the learned Single Judge,
Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar
Maurya the accused in FIR No.406 of 2020 have been
ordered to be enlarged on bail though the charges
thereunder are grave, which include Section 302 IPC and
Section 27/30 of the Arms Act. The allegation is of
indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of
Ram Prasad Pandey, the brother of the complainant. It is no
doubt true, that the investigation has been carried out in
the said case and the chargesheet is stated to have been
filed. Further, the fact that the said accused persons had
spent 10, 7 and 4 months respectively in custody seems to
have weighed with the Court which could not have been a
mitigating factor when charges of such serious nature are to
be tried. The details furnished by the learned senior counsel
for the State would indicate that seven other cases are
registered against one of the accused named Raj Kumar
Maurya who is also alleged to be a part of the group of the
accused in the instant case. In such circumstance, when the
said persons are also stated to have been attacked by the
14
rival group as alleged in the counter complaint of Sarvesh
Tiwari in FIR No.407 of 2020 and the investigation is not yet
complete in the said proceedings, it would not be
appropriate for the said persons who were part of one group
which had clashed against the other to be in a position to
alter the nature of consideration when ultimately a
composite investigation to complete the process in FIR
No.407 of 2020 would also be necessary. Therefore, at the
outset, when it is noted that Ram Prasad Pandey died due to
firearm wound suffered by him and both the FIR No.406 of
2020 and FIR No.407 of 2020 referred to the indiscriminate
use of firearm in the clash, the release of the accused in FIR
No.406 of 2020 at this juncture was not justified, more
particularly in a circumstance where the learned Single
Judge has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to the
specific details of the case and the reason for which each of
the accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail. At this
stage, in any event the role of each member in either group
is not clear.
16. Similarly, the complaint lodged in FIR No.407 of 2020
discloses that the allegation made against the appellants in
15
the second set of appeal is also of grave nature; to the effect
that the accused persons were armed with illegal weapons
and due to the previous enmity, they had come there with
intention to kill the complainant and his associates. In that
regard, it is alleged that the accused had indulged in
indiscriminate firing on the complainant, his cousin brother
Anand Tiwari, Rahul Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and that they fell
down on sustaining gunshot injury. As against the said
allegations, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for
the said appellants while seeking to justify the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail has made strenuous attempt to
contend that the said complaint is belated and lodged as a
counter blast though there is no truth in the allegations. In
that regard, in order to contend that Anand Tiwari had not
suffered gunshot injury, has referred to the medical
certificate wherein the opinion expressed is that the injuries
which were shown to be lacerated wound are simple in
nature caused due to hard and blunt object.
17. Though such contention is put forth, we are unable to
appreciate the same in favour of the said appellants to
consider grant of anticipatory bail, for more than one
16
reason. Firstly, the delay as alleged in filing the complaint
would not be material at this stage since the ultimate
reference is to the very same incident dated 08.05.2020. The
allegation in the complaint dated 12.05.2020 is not relating
to any other subsequent incident so as to deem it as a
complaint filed as being in the nature of counter blast.
Further, the very complaint registered at the behest of
Laxman Prasad Pandey in FIR No.406 of 2020 would
indicate that in his complaint, he has inter alia stated thus
“in the meanwhile, Aditya Singh and Monu caught hold of the
appellants’ brother and thereby snatched his licensed pistol”.
The said statement in his own complaint would indicate that
the group including the complainant in FIR No.406 of 2020
who are the accused in FIR No.407 of 2020 and are seeking
for grant of anticipatory bail were also armed with firearm
when they had gone to the said spot where the incident
occurred. If that be the position, it is too premature at this
stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which group was the
aggressor and the manner in which the firing had erupted
and also the weapons that were used. These are all matters
to be looked into during the investigation of the pending
17
complaint and for the purpose of framing charges and the
consequent trial. In addition, though the injuries suffered by
Anand Tiwari is contended to be a simple injury, the counter
statement filed on behalf of the respondents, more
particularly the State of Uttar Pradesh would indicate that
one of the reasons given for incompletion of the investigation
is that the injured is still undergoing treatment which
makes it obvious that he has suffered more than the simple
injuries referred to by the learned counsel. Therefore, if all
these aspects are kept in view, the allegations are of serious
nature which would require a detailed investigation and
recovery of weapons in the course of investigation which is
yet to be completed. In that view, it is not a fit case where
the appellants in the second set of appeal need to be
protected by grant of anticipatory bail.
18. In the above background, in both the set of cases the
composite consideration would be required in the further
process of investigation, framing charges and trial. That
apart, as noticed, one among the accused namely Raj
Kumar Maurya who has a criminal history was also a part of
one of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on
18
08.05.2020 and in that circumstance when the case has
been registered under Section 302 and in the second FIR
under Section 307, in addition to Section 149 IPC, in both
the cases, the bail granted to the appellants in the first set
of cases would not be justified. Further, as indicated supra,
the appellants in the second set of cases would also not be
entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, though it would be
open to them to surrender and seek for regular bail on its
own merits.
19. For all the aforestated reasons, the following order:
(i) The orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020 and
26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Bail Applications No.1694/2021; 9559/2020
and 3876/2021 are set aside and the bail
granted by the High Court is set aside.
(ii) The bail bonds executed by Anjani Kumar
Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar
Maurya shall stand cancelled and the said
accused shall be taken to custody.
(iii) The Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No.3285/2021; Criminal Appeal No.1554
19
1555/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos.56055606/2021
and Criminal Appeal No.1553/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No. 5539/2021) are allowed accordingly.
(iv) The Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No.6061/ 2021; Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021
@ SLP (Crl.) No.3226/2021; Criminal Appeal No.
1558/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and
Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No.6569/2021 seeking for an order of
anticipatory bail are dismissed.
(v) The interim orders passed during the pendency
of these proceedings shall stand dissolved.
(vi) It will be open for the appellants in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1556/2021, 1552/2021, 1558/2021
and 1557/2021 to surrender and seek for
regular bail which shall be considered on its own
merits, in accordance with law.
(vii) This order shall not be an impediment for the
trial court or High Court to consider applications
of any of the accused at the appropriate stage.
All contentions in that regard are kept open. The
20
observation herein shall not be considered as an
expression of opinion on merits of the case.
(viii) Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
....………….…………………………...……. J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
….....…………………………….……………J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
December 11, 2021
21