Bail – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Respondent No.2 and other accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and killed the elder brother of informant- appellant – Deceased was fired at, and also assaulted with danda and lathi – Respondent no.2 was a history-sheeter and having criminal antecedents – He was also allegedly involved in murder of informant’s father and younger brother – Trial of these cases were at the crucial stage of recording of evidence, and there were allegations of the informant and the witnesses being pressurised by respondent no.2 – Judgment of High Court releasing respondent No.2 on bail – Held: Not justified – No reasons whatsoever was assigned by the High Court while releasing respondent no.2 on bail – High Court did not advert to the relevant considerations for grant of bail and also did not consider the criminal antecedents of respondent no.2 even when so pointed out on behalf of the informant – High Court did not consider the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged – Respondent no.2 directed to surrender forthwith – IPC – ss.147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 – Arms Act – s.27.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it can be seen that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail. After recording the submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State thereafter the High Court has only observed that “considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for the bail of the petitioner is allowed.” There is no further reasoning given at all. Neither the High Court has considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. [Para 7][235-C-E]
2. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail. Even the High Court has also not at all considered the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 - accused. Though it was pointed out on behalf of the informant that the accused is involved in two cases and that the appellant (informant) was restrained from proceeding further in earlier cases pending against the accused, the High Court has simply brushed aside the same and has not considered the same at all. The High Court has noted the submission on behalf of the accused that one other accused has been released on bail. However, the High Court has not at all considered whether the case of the said other accused is similar to that of the respondent No.2-accused or not. It appears that the High Court has passed the order mechanically and in a most perfunctory manner. [Paras 9, 10][237-G; 238-A-D]
3. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail is absolutely unsustainable. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged. [Para 11][239-B-C]
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana (Koli) and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 230;
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019]
14 SCR 529; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR 195; and Neeru Yadav v. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015]
10 SCR 802 – relied on.
Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another, 2021
(13) SCALE 38 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.