Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 788

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Laxman Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3285/2021) with Crl.Appeal No. 1558 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6611/2021; Crl.Appeal No. 1557 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6569/2021; Crl.Appeal No. 1552 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.3226/2021; Crl.Appeal Nos. 1554-1555 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5605-5606/2021; Crl.Appeal No. 1553 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5539/2021; Crl.Appeal No. 1556 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6061/2021
Decided on : 11-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Sidharth Luthra, Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, Anmol Shrivastava, Aparna, Advocates
For the Respondent:V.K. Shukla, Adarsh Upadhyay, Aviral Saxsena, Amol Chitravanshi, Ajay Prajapati, Sameer Kumar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be granted in cases where allegations are of serious nature which would require a detailed investigation.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – FIR registered against persons named therein which include private respondents in first set of three appeals, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and 120B IPC and Sections 27/30 of Arms Act – Allegation is of indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in death of brother of complainant – Seven other cases are registered against one of accused who is also alleged to be a part of group of accused in instant case – Allegations are of serious nature which would require a detailed investigation and recovery of weapons in course of investigation which is yet to be completed – In that view, it is not a fit case where appellants in second set of appeal need to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail – When case has been registered under Section 302 and in second FIR under Section 307, in addition to Section 149 IPC, in both cases, bail granted to appellants in first set of cases would not be justified – Appellants in second set of cases would also not be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, though it would be open to them to surrender and seek for regular bail on its own merits – When case has been registered under Section 302 and in second FIR under Section 307, in addition to Section 149 IPC, in both cases, bail granted to appellants in first set of cases would not be justified – Appellants in second set of cases would also not be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, though it would be open to them to surrender and seek for regular bail on its own merits. (Paras 15, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
In the first set of three appeals, complainant Laxman Prasad Pandey has assailed the orders passed by Single Judge of the High Court enlarging accused on bail, in case relating to FIR No.406 of 2020. In second set of four appeals, the appellants therein have assailed the order passed by Single Judge dismissing the petitions filed by them seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.407 of 2020. The above noted two sets of cases were tagged, heard together and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment, since the issue in these appeals pertain to same incident.
Findings of Court:
Judge though has taken note of details of incident and the contention of Counsel for parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction to enlarge the accused on bail.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna, J.

The three appeals of the first set, all titled Laxman Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1551/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3285/2021); Criminal Appeal No. 1554-1555/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5605-5606/2021) and Criminal Appeal No. 1553/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5539/2021) arise against the orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020 and 19.03.2021 and 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail Application No.1694 of 2021, Bail Application No.9559 of 2020, Bail Application No. 11 of 2021 and Bail Application No.3876 of 2021. The accused in the above said cases are Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar Maurya.

2. The second set of four appeals, titled Laxman Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. bearing Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061/ 2021); Vishnu Prasad Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No. 1552/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.3226/2021; Subhash Saini and Pramod Prasad Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No. 1558/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and Ratnakar Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No. 1557/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6569/2021) arise against the separate orders, all dated 23.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in A.B. No.5003 of 2020, A.B No.276 of 2021 and A.B. No.5370 of 2020 respectively.

3. In the first set of three appeals, the complainant Laxman Prasad Pandey has assailed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court enlarging the accused on bail, in case relating to FIR No.406 of 2020. In the second set of four appeals, the appellants therein have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitions filed by them seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.407 of 2020. The above noted two sets of cases were tagged, heard together and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment, since the issue in these appeals pertain to the same incident which is alleged to have occurred on 08.05.2020 within the jurisdiction of the Kotwali City Police Station, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The brief facts to be noted for the purpose of disposal of these appeals indicate that Laxman Prasad Pandey had reported with a complaint to the jurisdictional Police on 09.05.2020 at 16:30 hours about the incident. The same was registered in FIR No.406 of 2020. In the said complaint, he had alleged that he along with his brother Ram Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, Surendra Tiwari and others went to the plot situated in Marut Nagar where Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari @ Vivek and others named in the complaint along with certain other unknown persons were present. Complainant went there to seek return of the money he had given earlier to Sarvesh Tiwari. It is alleged that Sarvesh Tiwari and others were armed with repeater, pistol and rifle. When the complainant reached there, he and his associates were asked to sit on the chairs. The complainant at that point asked for return of his money. At that stage Aditya Singh @ Major and the other persons named in the complaint exhorted to attack the complainant and his associates by shouting "Mar Dalo Salo Ko". The said Aditya Singh and Monu are alleged to have caught hold of the appellants' brother and snatched his licensed pistol, while Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and others who were armed with weapons started firing on the complainant and his brother. They ran helter-skelter and in the melee, appellant's brother - Ram Prasad Pandey fell down since he suffered firearm injuries. His brother was taken to the District Hospital, from where he was referred to Allahabad Swaroop Rani Hospital when he breathed his last during the treatment. In that light, the FIR was registere