Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 323
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 14988 of 2023]
RAMAYAN SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 355 of 2024]
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal i.e., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 14988
of 2023, seeks to assail the correctness of a judgment of the
Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad (the “ High Court ”) dated 24.04.2023 wherein, the
High Court allowed Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal’s / Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2024.04.19
17:58:34 IST
Reason:
No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of the Code of
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 1 of 11
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“ CrPC ”) and accordingly enlarged
Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained
therein (the “ Impugned Order ”).
3. By an order dated 31.10.2023, a co-accused i.e., Punit Pal
was enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
The appeal filed by the Appellant against that order has been
tagged with the present appeal vide an order dated 02.01.2024 in
SLP (Crl) No. 355 of 2024. Moreover, as the facts and the
questions involved in the present appeal(s) are similar, they have
been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
4. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report
(the “ FIR ”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original
Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around
3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh
(the “ Deceased ”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from
Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused
person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit
Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and
proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods.
Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and
physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks
and bats with an intention to kill him. It was also alleged that
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 2 of 11
although the Appellant and Rahul i.e., the Driver attempted to
intervene, they were injured by the accused persons. The accused
persons snatched the mobile phones of the Deceased and the
driver; as well as a gold chain belonging to the Deceased and ran
away from the spot of the incident. The Deceased was initially
rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Bankati, however, due to
the serious nature of the injuries he was referred to the District
Hospital, Basti and thereafter to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow
where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 10.02.2022.
5. On the same day i.e., 10.02.2022, (i) an inquest report of
the person of the Deceased was prepared wherein injuries were
recorded on the head, hand and knee; and (ii) a post-mortem was
conducted which revealed 4 (four) major ante mortem head
injuries on the person of the Deceased. Pertinently, the cause of
death was identified as coma due to ante mortem head injuries.
6. Notably, Respondent No. 2 came to be apprehended in
relation to the FIR on 05.01.2022 and the murder weapon i.e., a
bat used in the assault of the Deceased was also recovered at his
instance. On the other hand, Punit Pal came to be apprehended
on 07.01.2022. A chargesheet came to be filed in relation to the
FIR on 14.03.2022 under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872
(“ IPC ”) read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 3 of 11
Act, 2013 (the “ Act ”) (the “ Chargesheet ”). Pursuant to the filing
of the Chargesheet, committal proceedings ensued and thereafter
charges were framed against the accused person(s) vide an order
dated 19.04.2023.
7. Respondent No. 2 preferred an application seeking the
grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the
FIR before the Learned Sessions Judge, Basti (the “ Trial
Cour t”). Vide an order dated 15.03.2022, the aforesaid bail
application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter,
Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking the grant of bail
which came to be allowed by the High Court vide the Impugned
Order.
8. On the other hand, Punit Pal preferred an application
seeking the grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s)
emanating from the FIR before the Trial Cour. Vide an order dated
29.03.2022, the aforesaid bail application came to be rejected by
the Trial Court. Thereafter, Punit Pal filed an application seeking
the grant of bail which came to be allowed by the High Court vide
an order dated 31.10.2023.
9. The Appellant herein i.e., the Original Complainant filed
the present appeals assailing the correctness of the order(s)
passed by the High Court enlarging (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii)
Punit Pal on bail in relation to the FIR.
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 4 of 11
10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant,
urged the following:
(a) The High Court ought not to have exercised its
jurisdiction to grant Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal
bail in light of the fact that (i) charges had been framed
against the accused person(s); (ii) recovery of the
weapon used in the assault of the Deceased has been
effected from Respondent No. 2; (iii) well-reasoned
order(s)had been passed by the Trial Court declining
the grant of bail to Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal;
(b) That there is a real and probable threat qua the ability
to influence witnesses in light of the overwhelming
influence exercised in the area by the accused
person(s) including inter alia Respondent No. 2 and
Punit Pal i.e., after the incident all shops near the place
of occurrence remained shut for a period of 10 (ten)
days; and
(c) That Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal have misused
their liberty i.e., an identified witness had previously
sought police protection from the Trial Court on
account of threats having been extended to him during
the pendency of the trial; and it was specifically
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 5 of 11
contended that threats were extended to the Appellant
himself by to Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal.
11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent State of Uttar Pradesh supported the stand of the
Appellant. Moreover, it was brought to our attention that both
Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal were also being prosecuted
under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2; and
Punit Pal has vehemently contended as under:
(a) That Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal have been
cooperating with the trial, however, the Appellant has
stalled proceedings before the Trial Court; and
(b) That the allegation levelled against Respondent No. 2;
and Punit Pal vis-à-vis extension of threats to the
Appellant was wholly erroneous and is in fact, a part
of a calculated effort to paint Respondent No. 2; and
Punit Pal in bad light; and
13. We have heard the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf
of the parties and perused the materials on record.
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 6 of 11
14. The fulcrum of the dispute before this Court is whether the
High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section
439 of the CrPC to grant Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in
relation to the proceeding(s) emanating out of the FIR?
15. It is well settled that the grant of bail involves the exercise
of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily,
1
capriciously; and injudiciously. In the aforesaid prism we must
assess the correctness of the order(s) of the High Court granting
Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation to the
proceeding(s) emanating out of the FIR.
16. This Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee ,
(2010) 14 SCC 496, enunciated certain parameters on which the
correctness of an order granting bail must be evaluated. The
relevant paragraph(s) are reproduced as under:
“9. …It is trite that this Court does not,
normally, interfere with an order [Ashish
Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of
2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed
by the High Court granting or rejecting bail
to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise
its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well
settled that, among other circumstances, the
1
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 7 of 11
factors to be borne in mind while considering
an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.
*
10. It is manifest that if the High Court
does not advert to these relevant
considerations and mechanically grants bail,
the said order would suffer from the vice of
non-application of mind, rendering it to be
illegal.”
17. Furthermore, this Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar ,
(2020) 2 SCC 118, followed Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (Supra)
and succinctly summarised the position qua interference by this
Court vis-à-vis an order granting bail. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as under:
“14. The provision for an accused to be
released on bail touches upon the liberty of
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 8 of 11
an individual. It is for this reason that this
Court does not ordinarily interfere with an
order of the High Court granting bail.
However, where the discretion of the High
Court to grant bail has been exercised
without the due application of mind or in
contravention of the directions of this Court,
such an order granting bail is liable to be set
aside. The Court is required to factor,
amongst other things, a prima facie view that
the accused had committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the offence and the
likelihood of the accused obstructing the
proceedings of the trial in any manner or
evading the course of justice. The provision
for being released on bail draws an
appropriate balance between public interest
in the administration of justice and the
protection of individual liberty pending
adjudication of the case. However, the grant
of bail is to be secured within the bounds of
the law and in compliance with the
conditions laid down by this Court. It is for
this reason that a court must balance
numerous factors that guide the exercise of
the discretionary power to grant bail on a
case-by-case basis. Inherent in this
determination is whether, on an analysis of
the record, it appears that there is a prima
facie or reasonable cause to believe that the
accused had committed the crime. It is not
relevant at this stage for the court to examine
in detail the evidence on record to come to a
conclusive finding.”
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 9 of 11
18. Turning to the issue at hand, we note that Respondent No.
2; and Punit Pal have been charged under inter alia Section(s)
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B IPC
on the basis of the materials on record including but not limited
to the post-mortem report; and statements of witnesses.
Furthermore, on 2 (two) occasions there have been allegations
levelled against Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal alleging inter
alia that the accused persons have attempted to intimidate the
Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant and another identified
witnesses in an effort to de-rail the trial in the present case.
19. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the High Court
ought not to have granted Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail
in relation to the proceedings emanating from the FIR on account
of (i) the seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused
person(s); and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at
large i.e., the accused person(s) were involved in a broad day-
light murder which led to the closure of a market for a prolonged
period of 10 (ten) days due to their overwhelming influence in
the area.
20. In the aforementioned context, the impugned orders dated
24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 granting bail to accused Vivek Pal @
Vikki Pal and Punit Pal, respectively, cannot be sustained and are,
accordingly, set aside.
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 10 of 11
21. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail
bond(s) of accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal shall
stand cancelled. The aforenoted person(s) shall be taken into
custody forthwith. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to
the Trial Court and PS Lalganj, Basti, Uttar Pradesh for onward
action and necessary compliance. The Trial Court is directed to
conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one
year from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
22. It is clarified that any observations made in this judgment
shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case at trial.
……………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 19, 2024
SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 Page 11 of 11