Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1695 OF 2022
Bohatti Devi …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
and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095 of 2022 by which
the High Court has released the respondent No. 2 accused on bail in
connection with the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B
IPC, the original complainant (now the State) has preferred the present
appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 is
Signature Not Verified
facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. Having
Digitally signed by
SNEHA
Date: 2022.09.30
16:26:18 IST
Reason:
gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, it can be seen that the
1
High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity of the
offence alleged against the respondent No. 2. Even the High Court has
not considered the relevant material forming the charge sheet. No
cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the
respondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a
very serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.
2.1 The High Court has also not considered the fact that earlier the
respondent No. 2 – accused initiated the proceedings before the High
Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him by filing an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by
the High Court. The High Court has also not considered that the special
leave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court rejecting
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also got dismissed by this
Court. The High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a
non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent No. 2 – accused
and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021. All the aforesaid
aspects, which are very material and/or relevant while considering the
prayer for bail have been ignored by the High Court while releasing the
respondent No. 2 on bail.
2.2 From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the High
Court has considered the enlargement on bail to the co-accused Vicky
and Sarvesh @ Mangal. However, the High Court while considering the
2
parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-accused
and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent
No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent
No. 2 - accused on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 1069 of 2014
for the offence under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Baraut, District
Baghpat is hereby quashed and set aside.
Now, the respondent No.2 to surrender before the concerned Jail
Authority / Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which,
non-bailable warrant be issued against him. However, it is observed that
the learned Trial Court to conduct the trial in accordance with law and on
merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it and without in any
way being influenced by the present order as any observations made in
the present order are while considering the bail application.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
3