Points Of Law : Liberty of accused has to be necessarily balanced with public interest in administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account - Order of the High Court does not clearly pass muster.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, the informant at whose behest FIR No 438 of 2019 was registered on 10 July 2019 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, U.P., has moved this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25 February 2020 granting bail to the second respondent.

3. Briefly stated, the First Information Report was registered at the behest of the appellant who is the father of the deceased. The FIR states that on 10 July 2019 at about 5.15 pm, the son of the appellant was proceeding for the purpose of milking the cattle, at which stage, seven persons residing on the same street attacked him with knives, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. A postmortem report was conducted at 1 am on 11 July 2019. As many as eight ante mortem injuries were detected. The statement of the appellant was recorded on 11 July 2019. After the arrest of one of the accused, Imran, on 11 July 2019, the Investigating Officer is stated to have made efforts between 12 and 27 July 2019 to apprehend the other accused, but the remaining accused were absconding. On 30 July 2019, a non-bailable warrant was issued. On 2 August 2019, a proclamation was issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Among the other accused, the second respondent surrendered before the court on 29 August 2019. On 31 October 2019, the application for bail moved on behalf of the second respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kasganj. The learned Sessions Judge observed thus:

"The applicant is nominated in the FIR. There is direct charge of the murder of the son of the applicant with knives. In the Post Mortem Report the cause of death of the deceased is due to Anti-Mortem injuries and shocked. There are 8 injuries mentioned in the Post Mortem Report. Hence in my opinion in view of the entire facts, heinous crime offence, and circumstances, the accused is not liable to be released on bail. Hence the bail application has been got dismissed."

4. Thereafter, the High Court was moved in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 6083 of 2020. The High Court by its order dated 25 February 2020 directed that the second respondent be enlarged on bail.

5. Mr Anilendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the only reason why the High Court was persuaded to grant bail was "the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India". It has been submitted that the High Court has not indicated any other reason and has completely ignored the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the injuries and the involvement, prima facie, of the accused, who are residing in the same locality who are named in the FIR.

6. Pursuant to the notice that was issued by this Court on 18 December 2020, the State of U.P. has entered appearance through Ms Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed. The State has supported the contention of the appellant. On 19 February 2021, after service was completed, time was granted both to the State as well as to the counsel for the second respondent to file a counter affidavit. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the State of UP, no counter has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. A letter has been circulated on behalf of the second respondent seeking a further adjournment. However, having due regard to the fact that the appellant seeks to challenge an order of the High Court granting bail to the second respondent in a serious offence involving the murder of the son of the appellant, we see no reason to grant any further adjournment having regard to the fact that sufficient time has already been granted on 19 February 2021.

7. The circumstances would indicate that a brutal murder has been committed of the son of the appellant. The postmortem report would indicate as many as eight ante mortem injuries