Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Vs.
Vipin Kumar and Ors. – Respondents
[Criminal Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2930 of 2013]
Decided On : 07-08-2014
High Court took into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that chance of appeal being heard in the near future was extremely remote- Hence, held that High Court had released respondents on bail on the basis of sound legal reasoning- No interference called for with the decision of High Court at this stage- Appeal dismissed(paras18,19)
Facts of the Case-
A- Respondents 2 and 3 herein in the instant case were convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34, Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and for offences under Section 4 r/w Section 25 of Arms Act for causing death of appellants brother and injuries to appellants father. An Application for bail filed by respondents was allowed by High Court.
B-Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court granting bail to respondents under section 389 of CrPC.
Findings of the Court-The Apex Court held that High Court had rightly applied its discretionary power under Section 389 of CrPC to enlarge the respondents on bail. Both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties were pending before High Court meaning thereby that the convictions of the respondents were not confirmed by the appellate court. Admittedly respondents had been granted bail earlier and they did not misuse the liberty. Also, the respondents had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different version.. High Court had taken into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future was extremely remote. Hence, held that High Court had released the respondents on bail on the basis of sound legal reasoning. No interference was called for with the decision of High Court at this stage. Appeal dismissed
Result- Appeal dismissed
Key Points: - The High Court rightly applied discretionary power under Section 389 CrPC to enlarge the respondents on bail because appeals and revisions were pending and convictions were not yet confirmed (!) . - The respondents had previously been granted bail and did not misuse liberty, and they conceded to the occurrence with a different version, which the Court noted in its reasoning (!) . - The Court emphasized that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future was extremely remote, influencing the bail decision (!) . - The appellant challenged the High Court’s bail order on the basis that reasons for granting bail under Section 389 CrPC should be recorded in writing, citing Section 389 and related case law, but the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that when convictions are not yet confirmed by the appellate court, it is permissible for the appellate court to grant bail under Section 389 CrPC based on discretionary reasoning, especially where appeals are pending and there is no misuse of liberty (!) . - The proceedings indicate that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision were pending before the High Court, affecting finality of convictions for bail considerations (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
V.Gopala Gowda, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2684 of 2009 urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.
3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in this appeal.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who was at the time of the incident, studying in an engineering college at Noida, happened to be at Shikarpur crossing within the police station Kotwali Nagar. At about 10 a.m. on 27th June 2003, it was then that the convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 dragged him into their house and began to assault him. Hearing the cries, the appellant's father Shri Khem Chand and brother Shri Rajeev would arrive at the scene to his rescue. In the scuffle which ensued, both the father and the brother of the appellant got injured which led to the consequential death of the appellant's brother Rajeev. After the FIR and follow- up investigation by police, charge sheets were submitted by the police subjecting the convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 to trial under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and for offences under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 16.4.2009, convicted and sentenced the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to various terms of imprisonment in Sessions trial Nos. 985, 987 and 988 of 2003.
6. In the counter version of the matter, the convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3, while admitting the date, time and place of the incident, claimed that the appellant and his deceased brother, Rajeev had barged into their house and attempted to sexually abuse a lady in their house namely Smt. Kajal. This very criminal behaviour of the appellant and his deceased brother gave rise to scuffle between the parties which resulted in the death of the brother of the appellant.
7. On the basis of the complaint of the respondents, the appellant was put to trial under different charges in cross Sessions trial No. 524 of 2005. The appellant was however acquitted from offences punishable under Section 376/511, 323 and 324 of IPC.
8. The convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 2684 of 2009 against their conviction by the Additional District and Sessions Judge vide Order dated 16.4.2009. A Criminal Revision No. 1744 of 2009 was also filed by Smt. Kajal against the acquittal of the appellant from charges under Section 376 I.P.C. The Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision are still pending for disposal before the High Court.
9. In the meanwhile, the first application for bail moved by the convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the above Criminal Appeal No. 2684 of 2009 was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court on 27.7.2011.
10. However, the subsequent application of the convicted Respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the same Criminal Appeal No. 2684 of 2009 was allowed by the High Court vide Order dated 18.2.2013 requiring them to furnish individually, a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties each, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
11. It is against this enlargement of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on bail by the High Court, that the appellant has appealed before us.
12. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents in exercise of power under Section 389 of CrPC without assigning any legal and acceptable reason being oblivious to the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence being led thereof and the punishment awarded by the trial court.
13. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel that the deceased and the father of the appellant were assaulted with repeated blo
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
