Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Mauji Ram – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1150 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1523 of 2019) With Criminal Appeal Nos.1151-1152 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1525-1526 of 2019) and Criminal Appeal Nos.1153-1156 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.4795-4798 of 2019)
Decided On : 29-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ajit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Adnan Siddiqui, Pranshu Kaushal, Puny Garg, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Though it is not be necessary to give categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail yet it must appear that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - high Court granting bail without assigning any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it granted the bail - High Court not considering material on record - Not sustainable. (Para 12, 17)
       Facts of the case:
       Respondent No.2 in all the appeals (total respondents being 7) are facing trial for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These respondents were apprehended for committing the murder of one Sumit Kumar son of the appellant-Complainant.
       The respondents (accused persons) after they were apprehended applied for grant of bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected.
       The respondents filed the bail applications under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the High Court which has been allowed.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court should not have granted bail.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17.01.2019 in CRMBA No.1859 of 2019, dated 24.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3574/2019, dated 29.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3547/2019, dated 06.02.2019 in CRMBA No.4627/2019, dated 18.02.2019 in CRMBA No.6450/2019, dated 12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated 26.03.2019 in CRMBA No.11793 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.

4. Respondent No.2 in all the appeals, namely, Subhash, Kartar, Sohit, Amarjeet, Soran Bhati, Lilu @ Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total-7), herein after collectively referred to as “respondents” are facing trial for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) which arise out of Crime No. 608/2018 registered with P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP) pending in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in BA No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-UPGB01-003006/2018, B.A. No.6295/2018-UPGB01-003536/2018, B.A. No.6738/2018-UPGB01-004693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01-004694/2018. These respondents were apprehended for committing the murder of one Sumit Kumar son of the appellant-Complainant.

5. The respondents (accused persons) after they were apprehended applied for grant of bail before the Sessions Court in the aforementioned trial. The Sessions Judge by order dated 20.11.2018 in BA No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-UPGB01-003006/2018, order dated 22.11.2018 in B.A. No.6295/2018-UPGB01-003536/2018 and order dated 08.01.2019 in B.A. No.6738/2018-UPGB01-004693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB0100 4694/2018 rejected the bail applications of the respondents.

6. The respondents felt aggrieved by the rejection of their bail applications and filed the bail applications under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in the High Court of Allahabad. By impugned orders, the High Court allowed the bail applications and accordingly directed release of the respondents on bail on their furnishing security and bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.

7. It is against these orders of the High Court, the father of the deceased has felt aggrieved and filed these appeals questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned orders.

8. So far as the State is concerned, they have supported the appellant by filing counter affidavit. The respondents (accused persons) are also served and duly represented.

9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondents (accused).

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals and while setting aside the impugned orders dismiss the bail applications filed by the respondents(accused persons). The impugned order reads as under:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Subhash involved in Case Crime No.608 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 427, 307, 302, 120-B IPC,
P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTThough it is not be necessary to give categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail yet it must appear that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Though it is not be necessary to give categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail yet it must appear that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts.