Puran Mal vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

10 March 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vineet Saran, Aniruddha Bose

Citation

[2022] 2 S.C.R. 859 : 2022 INSC 297

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – Respondent no.2 was accused of offence u/s.302, IPC – Bail denied by Trial Court – Granted by High Court – On appeal by complainant, held: When the Trial Court has dismissed the bail application (in the present case it was dismissed twice), the High Court while taking a view different from the Trial Court ought to give some cogent and valid reasons for grant of bail – Nature of offence in the present case is very grave – Fact that the son (accused no.1) of the respondent no.2 had stabbed the deceased in his presence is prima facie clear from the material available and the CCTV footage filed before High Court – Details of the phone calls made between the respondent no.2 and his son are also on record – All these factors not considered by High Court – Further, there are allegations that the family of the deceased had been threatened on behalf of respondent no.2 – Order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no.2 is quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302.

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant/rejection of – Guiding principles – Discussed.

Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 559 : [1980] 3 SCR 15; Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002)

3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Jaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 58; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. (2021) SCC Online SC 1280]; X vs. State of Telangana and Anr. (2018) 16 SCC

511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC

528 : 2004 (3) JT 442; Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 648 : 2020 (2) JT 72; State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454 – relied on.

The following Order of the Court was passed: ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a case for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by the Trial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High Court has allowed the bail application of the respondent no. 2. The complainant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition questioning legality of the order granting bail to the respondent no.2. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who

View Subscription Plans →