Back
2012 (1) Supreme 339
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi — Appellant(s)
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10244 of 2010)
Decided on : 16-1-2012
Facts of the Case :
A. Respondent2 along with other accused persons was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC . Pending proceeding of trial, an Order was passed by High Court granting conditional bail to respondent2.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A.Taking note of facts that respondent 2 was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial had commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and the assurance by State that trial would not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting bail had imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail, no interference was called for with the order of High Court.
B. In fact, in the impugned order itself, High Court had made it clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions, trial Court would have liberty to take steps to send respondent No.2 to jail again. In addition to the same, it was further made clear that if the appellant received any fresh threat from respondent 2 or from his supporters, he was free to inform trial Court and in such event the trial Court was free to take appropriate steps as observed by High Court. Appeal was dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves an appeal against a High Court order granting conditional bail to the respondent accused of serious offenses under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (!) (!) .
The appellant, who is the President of a political party, contended that the respondent was involved in a violent incident resulting in a fatality and serious injuries during a political meeting, and that the respondent has a criminal background with numerous cases against him (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent has been in jail since August 24, 2009, and the trial had commenced with the examination of witnesses. The prosecution assured that the trial would be concluded within a reasonable time frame (!) (!) .
The High Court granted conditional bail, imposing several strict conditions, including the trial court's liberty to revoke bail if conditions were breached, and the appellant's right to inform the court of any threats received from the respondent or his supporters (!) (!) .
The appellate court noted that the respondent was in custody, the trial was progressing, and the prosecution's assurances indicated a likelihood of a timely conclusion. It also emphasized the importance of strict adherence to bail conditions and the trial court's authority to revoke bail if necessary (!) (!) .
The appellate court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's order, with directions for the trial to be completed within four months from receipt of the order, barring unnecessary delays (!) .
Overall, the court balanced considerations of the respondent's background, progress of the trial, and assurances of a swift trial, concluding that the bail conditions and safeguards were appropriate and sufficient (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam,J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28420 of 2009 whereby the High Court has granted bail to Mr. Ramakant Yadav - respondent No.2/accused in Case Crime No. 622 of 2009, FIR No. 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, U.P.
3) Brief facts:
(a) According to the appellant, he is the President of a political party, namely, Rashtriya Ulema Council. On 12.08.2009, a meeting of the Party was to be held at Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, U.P. from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and he was to attend the said meeting in the capacity of Chief Guest.
b) At about 1.45 p.m., the appellant started towards the venue of the meeting and his convoy was being led by 10 to 15 supporters who were riding on motorcycles. At that moment, the second respondent/accused came from behind in the convoy of cars and immediately after crossing the appellant’s car and his supporters, the convoy of cars belonging to the second respondent/accused suddenly stopped on the road without giving any signal and the second respondent/accused came out of his vehicle armed with a gun along with his supporters who were also carrying guns and they started giving kick blows to one of the motorcycle riders who fell down and the pillion riders of the said motorcycles were fired upon by the second respondent and his supporters from their respective guns and thereafter, they ran away from the place. Adbul Rehman-the pillion rider sustained serious fire arm injuries. When he was taken to the hospital at Varanasi, he succumbed to his injuries.
c) On the basis of a written complaint in the Police Station, Phoolpur, FIR No. 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was registered. The second respondent was arrested only on 24.08.2009. It was further stated by the appellant that the accused is a habitual criminal and has a criminal background having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences against him. The second respondent filed a Criminal Bail Application being No. 28420 of 2009 before the High Court praying for his release. The appellant filed his objection. He also highlighted that from 14.08.2009, the appellant started receiving threatening calls from the second respondent warning him not to pursue the case otherwise he shall be eliminated.
d) On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 15.07.2010 against respondent No.2 and three other persons under Sections 302, 307 and 325 read with 34 IPC and the trial of the case has been started by examining the injured witness - Farhan as PW-1 on 29.04.2010 and 15.07.2010.
e) Pending proceeding of the trial, the High Court, by impugned order dated 06.08.2010, granted conditional bail to the second respondent. Questioning the same and of the fact that the appellant had received several threat calls, he filed the present appeal for setting aside the same.
4) Heard Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the contesting second respondent.
5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions.
6) It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
