Laxman Prasad Pandey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

307 IPC) was filed by another group, however, they alleged that appellant and his group were the aggressors and they had fired upon them – The High Court granted bail to the accused persons in the first FIR and in the second FIR the accused persons i.e. appellant and others were denied anticipatory bail – On appeal, held: A perusal of the order in the proceedings relating to the first FIR in bail application indicates that the Single Judge of the High Court though has taken note of details of the incident and the contention of the parties, has not analyzed the same to record the satisfaction to enlarge the accused on bail – The conclusion recorded by the Single Judge of the High Court is almost verbatim similar to the portion which is extracted and disapproved by the Supreme Court in Mahipal’s case – The accused were enlarged on bail though the charges were grave, which included s.302 IPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act – The fact that the said accused persons had spent 10, 7 and 4 months respectively in custody have weighed with the High Court which could not have been a mitigating factor when charges of such serious nature are to be tried – Further, one of the accused had seven cases registered against him and investigation is not yet complete in the second FIR – One person died due to firearm wound – So, release of the accused persons at this juncture not justified – As far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the appellant himself stated in the first FIR that accused persons caught hold of his brother’s licensed pistol, which would indicate that appellant and his group were also armed – So, it is too premature at this stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which group was the aggressor – The State indicated that one of the reasons for incomplete investigation was that one person was still undergoing treatment, that itself makes it clear that injuries were not of simple nature – The allegations, in the instant case were of serious nature which would require a detailed investigation and recovery of weapons in the course of investigation which is yet to be completed – Thus, it is not a fit case where the appellants need to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail – Also, the bail order granting bail to the accused in first FIR set aside and their bail bonds stand cancelled.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021 in the proceedings relating to FIR No. 406 of 2020 in Bail Application indicates that the Single Judge of the High Court though has taken note of details of the incident and the contention of the parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction to enlarge the accused on bail. [Para 12][637-F-G]

2. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is noticed that the conclusion recorded by the Single Judge of the High Court is almost verbatim similar to the portion which is extracted and disapproved by this Court in Mahipal’s case. It is noticed that with such sweeping observation made, 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 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 State would indicate that seven other cases are registered against one of the accused 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 rival group as alleged in the counter complaint 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 brother of appellant 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 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. [Para 15][639-C-H; 640-A-B]

3. This Court is unable to appreciate the grant of anticipatory bail, for more than one 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 the appellant in FIR No.406 of 2020 would indicate that in his complaint, he has inter alia stated that two persons of the rival group caught hold of his 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 complaint and for the purpose of framing charges and the consequent trial. In addition, though the injuries suffered by one person 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 said injured is still undergoing treatment which makes it obvious that he has suffered more than the simple injuries referred to by the 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. [Para 17][640-F-H; 641-A-D]

4. 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 has a criminal history was also a part of one of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on 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, 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. [Para 18][641-D-F]

Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118: [2019] 14 SCR 529; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 – relied on.