SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Girraj - Appellant
Versus
Kiranpal and Anr Etc - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.286-290 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No 2211-2215 of 2021) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) Diary No 28132 of 2020)
Decided on : 08-03-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326, 341 & 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 437 – Bail Application – Application filed by the Co-accused was grated – Based on this applications filed by others also granted by the High Court – The grant of bail to the first co-accused was against the settled principles of law – The cancellation of bail that was granted to co-accused must have a similar consequence insofar as the grant of bail to the remaining five accused is concerned (Para 14)
Facts of the Case:
In an alleged incident two persons were dead and others were injured. Based on an FIR and the investigation by the police, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 against all the accused and also under Section 27 and 30 of the Arms Act against two accused persons .One of the co-accused was released on bail. Relying on this order, others also filed bail applications. Following the parity, the High Court granted bail to all the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
Findings of the Court:
Since bail has been granted to all the respondent-accused who have claimed parity on the basis of the order granting bail to co-accused, there can be no manner of doubt that the cancellation of bail that was granted to the said co-accused must have a similar consequence insofar as the grant of bail to the remaining five accused is concerned.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - Cancellation of bail granted to a co-accused requires a similar consequence insofar as the grant of bail to the remaining accused is concerned (!) . - The High Court granted bail to all accused based on parity after one co-accused was granted bail (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The cancellation of bail of the co-accused (Narendra) by this Court operates as a basis to cancel bail of the remaining accused (!) . - The accused had claimed parity and sought bail based on the earlier order granting bail to co-accused Narendra (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Serious offences involving death and armed weapons militate against grant of bail (!) (!) . - The accused are directed to surrender forthwith conditional on which they may move the High Court afresh for bail (!) (!) . - The appeal is allowed and the orders granting bail to the five accused are cancelled (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.
2. Leave granted.
3. A batch of five Special Leave Petitions (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution has arisen from the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting bail to the five respondent-accused, namely:
(ii) Sundar;
(iii) Rakesh;
(iv) Satish; and
(v) Dharmendra.
4. The circumstances which have led to the registration of the first information report1[“FIR”] being Case Crime No 414 of 2019 against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 342 and 508 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar may be adverted to briefly. The appellant who is the original complainant had two sons, Gajendra aged 34 years and Akash aged 22 years, who were killed in the course of an incident which took place on 29 November 2019. Two other persons, Sunil and Jeetu, out of the four others present along with the deceased, are alleged to have been seriously injured in the course of the incident. The FIR was lodged on 30 November 2019 at 1743 hours against eight accused persons, five of which are before this Court in these proceedings. The FIR refers to the fact that there was an enmity between the accused and the complainant and his sons due to “party politics”. The FIR mentions an earlier incident on 24 October 2019, when five of the accused (Sundar, Dharmendra, Monu, Kiranpal and Ompal) had attacked Akash at Chambe in Mirzapur with an intent to kill him. Akash had allegedly sustained a head injury after being assaulted with an iron rod and a fire-arm injury in respect of which a first information report was lodged. Two of the accused (Rakesh and Satish) had also allegedly assaulted the appellant’s sons in the morning of 29 November 2019 and threatened them with death. The incident concerning the present case is alleged to have taken place at night, on 29 November 2019. One of the deceased, Gajendra, the son of the appellant, was conducting a gym and after closing his establishment, he was proceeding in his vehicle from village Rabupura to village Rampur Bangar together with Akash, who was in another vehicle. Two other persons, Sunil and Deepak are alleged to have been in a third vehicle. Jeetu and Subhash were proceeding in a fourth vehicle. When these persons reached a particular spot at around 8:30 pm, their passage was found to be blocked by a bullock cart. The eight accused were allegedly present at the spot armed with rifles, guns and country-made pistols for an ambush. They are alleged to have surrounded the four vehicles with an intention of assaulting the appellant’s sons. Accused Mulla is alleged to have fired with his rifle at Gajendra, while accused Bhupan is alleged to have fired with his rifle at Akash. Both Gajendra and Akash were killed on the spot. Sunil and Deepak who were in the third vehicle are alleged to have got down after seeing the occurrence. Jeetu and Subash also came out of the fourth vehicle. Among the injured were Sunil and Jeetu. After the FIR was lodged, all the respondent-accused were arrested on 6 December 2019.
5. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation by the police was completed and a charge sheet was filed on 09 February 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 against all the accused and under Section 27 and 30 of the Arms Act against accused Sunder and Mulla.
6. The details of the impugned orders passed by the HC granting bail to the respondent-accused are as follows:
| Kiranpal | By order dated 17 September 2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 22538 of 2020 |
| Sundar | By order dated 22 September 2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 15449 of 2020 |
| Rakesh, Satish, Dharmendra | By common order dated 22 Septe |
The cancellation of bail granted to an accused will have an impact on the bail granted to co-accused also.
(1) Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail, as in case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution, is not unstructured.(2) Parity while granting bail must ....
Bail – There cannot be any undue discrimination in matter of grant of bail.
Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of parity without considering relevant features of case.
(1) Once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation.(2) Bail can be revoked by a superior court when previous court granting bail has ignored relevant mate....
(1) Bail – Order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal.(2) Court deciding bail application cannot co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.