Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Harjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Inderpreet Singh @ Inder and Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2021 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 3739 of 2021)
Decided On : 24-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 – Grant of bail – Murder and conspiracy charges – High Court has failed to appreciate and consider nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence – High Court has also failed to appreciate facts of case – nature of allegations – gravity of offence and role attributed to accused – High Court has also failed to notice serious allegation of hatching conspiracy from jail – Respondent no.1 herein is a habitual offender – On number of occasions, he has tried to kill complainant/appellant herein and his family – He has repeatedly committed offence of attempting to murder appellant herein/complainant thrice and has been convicted in all three FIRs – As and when he is granted bail, he came out of jail, committed another offence and again went to jail – Even High Court cancelled bail in another case – There is high possibility of threat and danger to life and safety of appellant herein/complainant and his family members – Grant of bail to respondent no.1 herein does not appear to be in order – Antecedents of respondent no.1 herein – threat perception to appellant and his family members are also not considered by High Court – High Court has erred in granting bail to respondent no.1 herein without taking into consideration overall facts – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and bail granted by High Court to respondent no.1 cancelled. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11809 of 2021, by which the High Court has released respondent no.1 herein – original accused on bail in connection with FIR No. 245 dated 21.09.2020 at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, the original informant – son of deceased has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing respondent no.1 – accused on bail and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 11809 of 2021, by which the High Court has released respondent no.1 herein – original accused on bail in connection with FIR No. 245 dated 21.09.2020 at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, the original informant – son of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the appellant herein – Harjit Singh son of late Mann Singh lodged an FIR being FIR No. 245 at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar on 21.09.2020 against the accused persons including respondent no.1 herein for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 alleging inter alia that on 21.09.2020 at about 5:45 p.m. when his father Mann Singh was present near the gate of Gurudwara Sahib, a white colour Maruti Car stopped near his father from which three persons alighted. The persons alighted from the car were (1) Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa son of Bahadur Singh; (2) Bahadur Singh son of Santokh Singh; and (3) Satvinder Singh son of Karam Singh, residents of Jamsher Khas. It was alleged that Bahadur Singh and Satvinder Singh caught hold of his father and Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa, who was armed with a pistol, fired 4-5 shots at his father, who died on account of said fire arm shots. It was specifically alleged that his father has been murdered by the assailants in connivance with Inderpreet Singh (respondent No.1 herein), who is undergoing sentence on account of a case registered at the instance of the complainant party. It was further alleged that the motive for the said occurrence is that FIR No. 12 dated 30.01.2020 at Police Station Jalandhar under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and FIR No. 33 dated 14.2.2011 at Police Station Jalandhar under Sections 307, 308, 326, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149 and 427 IPC had been lodged against the accused and the complainant’s father had been pursuing the said cases to get them convicted and on account of which his father had been murdered.
3.1 That during the investigation, it was revealed that though Inderpreet Singh (respondent No.1 herein) was not physically present at the spot, but it has been revealed that the deceased was murdered at the instance of the accused – Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) who hatched criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused to kill Mann Singh – father of the complainant; that during the interrogation the accused Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) confessed that he was in touch with co-accused through a mobile phone from jail which he destroyed after the occurrence; that during the course of investigation it was revealed that Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) and co-accused Jaskaran Singh were convicted in FIR No. 67 dated 08.05.2016; that Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) filed appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence in FIR No. 67 of 2016 and by order dated 30.04.2019 the High Court suspended the sentence of respondent no.1 herein – Inderpreet Singh, pending his appeal; that the complainant herein filed an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court for cancellation of bail of Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) and co-accused Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa since they had been calling the complainant and the injured on their phones and threatening them and vide order dated 26.07.2019 the High Court was pleased to cancel the bail of Inderpreet Singh (respondent no.1 herein) and co-accused Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar to take them into custody; that Inderpreet Singh (respondent No.1 herein) and co-accused Jaskaran Sing
(1) Habitual offenders having criminal proclivity should not be granted bail by Court.(2) Bail – Court must appreciate and consider nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of convicti....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the process of justice are cruc....
Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
(1) Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail.(2) Bail cannot be granted without looking....
(1) While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, following well-established principles, and not in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
The severity of the accusations, legal provisions, and judgments referenced influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
(1) Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.(2) For cancelling bail once granted, Court....
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
