Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Anil Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4574 of 2017)
With
Vikas Balguer – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1940 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7145 of 2017)
With
Ashish Balguer and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1939 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7131 of 2017)
With
Vikas @ Shammi – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1942 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No.7251 of 2017)
With
Tarun @ Maddy – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1941 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No.7213 of 2017)
Decided On : 14-11-2017
(2001) 6 SCC 338 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 228 and 439 – Trial court framing charge and granting bail by a common order – Considerations for both are different – Held, it is not desirable to frame charge and grant bail by way of a common order. (Para 17)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Considerations – (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering – It always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. (Para 18)
(2005) 8 SCC 21; (2005) 2 SCC 13 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Sessions court going into merits of the case – Analysing CCTV footage and arriving at erroneous conclusions and granting bail – High Court rightly setting aside order granting bail to the accused. (Para 23)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Period of incarnation by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail in offence u/s 302 – Instantly trial court granted bail because accused was behind the bars for 16 months – Not proper. (Para 24)
(2008) 3 SCC 775; (2002) 3 SCC 598 – Relied upon
(2009) 1 SCC 678 – Referred
(f) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Apart from CCTV footage other materials like statements of eye witnesses, recoveries made from accused persons, showing prima facie case against the accused – Trial court granting bail not considering these materials – Bail ought not be granted to ensure fair trial. (Para 27, 29)
(2012) 12 SCC 180; (2009) 14 SCC 286; (2017) 2 SCC 178 – Relied upon
(g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Cancellation of bail – Trial court order granting bail based on irrelevant considerations suffering from serious infirmity – High Court rightly interfered. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
Five accused were charged u/s 302 and 308 r/w 34 and one accused was charged u/s 201/212 IPC.
The trial granted bail to all the accused.
High Court cancelled bail of all the accused.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly interfered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the order of the High Court of Delhi in and by which the High Court has cancelled the bail granted to the respondents-accused by two separate orders dated 31.05.2017 and 08.09.2017. By virtue of the first impugned order, bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) was cancelled and by the second impugned order, bail granted to other accused were cancelled.
3. The case of prosecution is that on 21.10.2015, Rohit Bansal (injured witness) along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh (deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in two separate cars, i.e. Santro being registration No.UP-16-AM-6317 and Honda Civic being registration No.DL-7CF-4118. At around midnight 12.00-12.15, while dancing in the club, Rohit Bansal's hand struck an individual to whom he said "sorry". On this, the said individual abused and questioned Rohit Bansal and quarrel started between the two groups and the said individual took a glass from one of his friends and hit the complainant-Rohit Bansal; but the matter was pacified by the bouncers/security personnel of the club. Thereafter, the complainant-Rohit Bansal and his friends were sent out of the club and after coming out of the club when they reached IIT Gate, then Rohit Bansal realized that his mobile phone was missing which might have fallen during the quarrel and he along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu came back in Santro car to the club. When they came back, they found that a Mercedes and EON car had blocked the road and a Bolero car was parked on the road-side. When they asked them to let them pass, one of the accused with whom an altercation had taken place in the club, threatened to teach them a lesson. Thereafter, all the accused/assailants started beating them; one of the assailants brought an iron rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh and when Rohit intervened to save Rupesh, he was also attacked. Thereafter, another assailant lifted a cemented brick and hit Rupesh on his head and they all ran towards different directions to save themselves leaving Santro car at the spot. When Rohit Bansal returned back to take his car, he saw Rupesh lying at the spot unconscious and sustained multiple injuries on his body. Complainant Rohit along with one Sunil took Rupesh to the AIIMS Hospital and got him admitted in the Trauma Centre.
4. On receipt of DD regarding admission of Rupesh and Rohit Bansal (Complainant) in Trauma Centre AIIMS, ASI Dalbir Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Rohit Bansal, based on which FIR No.1187/2015 was registered under Section 307, Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Rupesh succumbed to injuries on 26.10.2015 and the FIR was altered into Sections 302, 308 IPC and 201 IPC read with 34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Tarun @ Maddy (A1), Vikas @ Shammi (A2), Ashish Balguer (A3), Anil Kumar Yadav (A4), Vikas Balguer (A5) and Vishal Balguer (A6); charge-sheet against Siddhant @ Goldy (A7) was filed under Section 201/212 IPC.
5. The trial court granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) vide order dated 27.02.2017, inter alia, on the grounds: - (i) that no other overt act had been attributed to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4); (ii) Based on CCTV footage, in drawing an inference that no specific role had been assigned to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4); and (iii) that Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) had been in custody for about sixteen months.
6. The order of granting bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) was assailed by the complainant before the High Court on the very next day. Pointing out that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the minute details of the case is not warranted and placing reliance upon Puran v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court thereby cancelling the bail granted to A
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
