Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 75

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Prabhakar Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.153 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.920 of /2019) WITH Criminal Appeal No.154 OF 2020 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.9209 of 2019)
Decided On : 24-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Rohit K. Singh, Praveen Jain, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be refused only on the ground that Offence alleged is grave and serious.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Case involves offence under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Accused has several criminal cases pending against him and has been named in statement forming the basis of FIR on the date of occurrence itself – Materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of evidence on record – Offence alleged is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against accused – These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail – Order of High Court granting bail sustained – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of two orders passed by High Court on 11th September, 2019 granting bail to two accused persons, Vikram Singh@ Vikki (in SLP(Crl.) No.9207/2019) and Malkhan Singh (in SLP(Crl.) No.9209/2019) arraigned in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a First Information Report dated 7th February 2009. The said report was made by Prabhakar Tewari, being the appellant (in both the appeals) in Police Station Jagadishpur in State of Uttar Pradesh.
Findings of Court:
Offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused upon considering relevant materials.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The appeals concern orders by the High Court granting bail to two accused individuals involved in a serious criminal case. The orders were challenged on the grounds of whether the bail was rightly granted, considering the gravity of the offence and other factors (!) (!) .
The offences involved are grave and serious, with multiple criminal cases pending against the accused. The fact that the offences are serious does not, by itself, justify refusal of bail. The High Court exercised its discretion in favor of granting bail after considering relevant materials (!) (!) (!) .
The accused individuals had been named in the FIR on the date of the incident, and their involvement was supported by witness statements, including statements recorded under legal procedures, which indicated their participation or conspiracy. However, the timing and reliability of some witness statements, especially those recorded after a delay, were contested (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the mere seriousness of the offence or the existence of other pending criminal cases against the accused does not automatically preclude bail. The courts found no evidence of non-application of mind or improper exercise of discretion in the High Court's decisions (!) (!) .
The courts acknowledged the importance of considering whether there was a prima facie case established by the evidence on record and whether the order granting bail was made after proper application of judicial discretion. They found that the High Court's decisions met these criteria and dismissed the appeals accordingly (!) (!) .
The courts also considered the fact that the accused had no prior criminal history or previous convictions and that there was no concrete evidence suggesting they would flee or tamper with witnesses if released on bail (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts upheld the High Court's discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that the factors cited by the appellant, such as the gravity of the offence and pending cases, alone, are insufficient to deny bail if there is no evidence of improper exercise of judicial discretion (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance related to this case.

JUDGMENT

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Leave granted in both the appeals.

2. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the High Court on 11th September, 2019 granting bail to two accused persons, Vikram Singh@ Vikki (in SLP(Crl.) No.9207/2019) and Malkhan Singh (in SLP(Crl.) No.9209/2019) arraigned in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a First Information Report dated 7th February 2009. The said report was made by Prabhakar Tewari, being the appellant (in both the appeals) in Police Station Jagadishpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The appellant is the son of the deceased victim, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari. He was assaulted by gunshots on 7th February, 2019 at about 4.00 p.m. while returning to his residence after attending the Court in connection with a case. In the first appeal (i.e. SLP(Crl.)No.9207 of 2019), the appellant assails the order granting bail to Vikram Singh @ Vikky by the High Court. In the statement of the appellant recorded in the evening on the date of occurrence at about 8.40 p.m., five persons have been named as direct assailants. Said Vikram Singh in the First Information Report has been named as the person by whom the “incident has been committed”. In his statement recorded on the next day i.e. 8th February, 2019, the appellant had named Vikram Singh as the person who had conspired to commit the said crime. Vikram Singh was taken into custody on 19th March 2019. The High Court, while granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh recorded the submission of his learned counsel as also that of the learned A.G.A., who had opposed the prayer for bail, in the following terms:-

“Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that statement of independent witness Narendra Dev Upadhyay was recorded after a span of 52 days and in his statement, he has categorically stated he has overheard the applicant planning for the alleged incident thereby indicating criminal conspiracy on the part of the applicant. There is no incriminating evidence against the applicant on record. It is also submitted that no recovery has been shown against the applicant. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2019. It has been pointed out that the applicant has criminal history which has been duly explained in the rejoinder affidavits. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Vikram Singh is involved in at least five other criminal cases under the same Police Station, Jagdishpur. He has also brought to our notice the witness statement of one Narendra Dev Upadhyay. This statement was recorded on 29th March 2019. The part of his statement to which our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant records that the said witness saw Vikram Singh standing near National Highway 56 Flyover on the date of occurrence of the incident in Warisganj with 6 or 7 accomplices and all of them were talking about plans of killing the victim.

Learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s stand. Mr. C.A. Sundram, learned senior counsel for the accused contested the present appeal. His main argument is that the statement of Narendra Dev Upadhyay, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution and the appellant was recorded after fifty days from the date of occurrence of the incident. On the question of granting bail, Mr. Sundram has argued, such a statement was unreliable. He has also submitted that even as per the F.I.R. or the witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, his client was not name

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 75

IMPORTANT POINTBail cannot be refused only on the ground that Offence alleged is grave and serious.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be refused only on the ground that Offence alleged is grave and serious.