Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan at Jaipur)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Kumer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 571 to 573 of 2021
Decided on : 20-07-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 427, 302 read with Section 149 – Bail – Grant of – Challenge as to – Despite seriousness of offence committed by accused and despite manner in which offence took place, without adverting to seriousness of offence and manner in which offence was committed, by impugned orders, the High Court has released accused on bail – Except narrating submissions made by Counsel appearing on behalf of accused and Public Prosecutor and complainant there is no independent application of mind by High Court and as such no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by High Court releasing accused on bail, that too in a case where accused are facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and other offences – High Court has not at all taken into consideration facts of case; nature of allegations; gravity of offences and role attributed to accused – Impugned orders passed by High Court releasing accused on bail cannot be sustained – Impugned order passed by High Court can be said to be perverse and suffers from non-application of mind to relevant factors to be considered while grant of bail and interference of this Court is warranted – At this stage, individual role of accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have been part of unlawful assembly – Merely because they were armed with lathis cannot be a ground to release them on bail – There is no delay on part of complainant in challenging impugned orders passed by High Court releasing accused on bail – Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail – Impugned orders passed by High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 10, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 14, 15 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench releasing the private respondents herein on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in connection with FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 427, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, original informant/complainant – brother of the deceased has preferred the present appeals. Orders passed by High Court releasing respondents – accused on bail in a serious case for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other offences are subject matter of present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Orders granting bail to the respondents – accused suffers from perversity. Impugned orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondents – accused do not pass the test laid down by this Court on grant of bail and exercising of powers of appellate court laid down in various decisions.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench releasing the private respondents herein - Kamlesh, Bhojraj Singh and Arif on bail under Section 439 CrPC, in connection with FIR No.210 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017 registered with PS Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 427, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the original informant/complainant - brother of the deceased has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant herein lodged an FIR against the accused named in the FIR for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 427, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC having brutally killed his brother Sumer Singh who was the member of the Border Security Force and was on leave. The date of incident was 16.08.2017. 10 accused persons were named in the FIR including Kamlesh, Arif, and Bhojraj Singh - private respondents herein. That 26 injuries were found on the deceased Sumer Singh and 11 injuries on one Vikram Singh caused by blunt and sharp weapons. It was alleged in the FIR as under:
(ii) On 16.08.2017, a dinner was scheduled in the house of uncle of the complainant at Rajiyasar Meetha and the family members departed around 11:20 PM at night 2 cars (1) a Bolero driven by complainant departed with other family members was leading ahead and followed by (2) and Innova driven by Chandra Pal Singh with other family members including the complainant’s brother, Sumer Singh.
(iii) Thereafter accused persons somehow came to know of the program of the complainant or going to Rajiyasar and Narendra Singh etc. called their other accomplices and friends in their village in their cars during the night. These 3 Cars (1) An Innova No. DL 4CN 0857 (2) a Bolero Camper (without number plate) (3) Pickup (without number plate) were loaded with weapons including Sword, Khokhri, Dhariya, Iron Pipes and Lathis.
(iv) The complainant’s Bolero car was leading ahead and found the Innova car of accused Kamlesh parked at the T point and drove but on discovering that the Innova car following behind was not visible, took a U-turn and upon reaching the T point, found that the Innova car was stuck in the fields with the windows smashed and accused Kamlesh along with 3 other Camper cars and about 20-25 persons and his brother Sumer Singh lying inside the field of Kamlesh and all the accused were indiscriminately stabbing him with Sword, Knife, Khokhri, Lathis and Rods.
(v) The accused persons ambushed the Innova car of the deceased by parking their cars sitting inside on different locations near the Bagichi and all the accused were sitting inside every car loaded with weapons.
(vi) The accused had complete knowledge that Sumer Singh who was working in the BSF, had come home on vacations and they wanted to murder him only.
(vii) The brutal manner in which Sumer Singh was ambushed, cornered and killed mercilessly is evident from the fact that when he tried to run and attempted save his life, he was hit by another Camer and Got Stuck between the Camper and the barbed wire and fell down and broke his leg. Thereupon all the accused pounced upon him and indiscriminately stabbed him with sharp weapons while he was lying on the ground.
3. That the bail applications submitted by the private respondents herein - accused came to be dismissed by the Learned Sessions Judge considering the seriousness of accusations leveled against the accused. That Kamlesh was arrested on 20.08.2017, Arif was arrested on 18.08.2017 and Bojraj Singh was arrested on 23.10.2017. That the police submitted a charge-sheet against all the ac
(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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned bail orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and the factors to be considered while granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of reasoned bail orders, the considerations for granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, and the importance of judicial discretion and....
(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) Grant of bail requires consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon specific facts and circumstances of case before Court – There is no strait-jacket formula which can ever be p....
(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....
(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 ....
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
