Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Aminuddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 5029 of 2021)
Decided on : 23-09-2022.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – FIR registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – High Court did not consider any other aspect of matter at all and proceeded to grant bail to accused-respondent only for reason that so-called identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail – Order granting bail to co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – When bail granted to co-accused person has been disapproved by Supreme Court and such grant of bail to co-accused had been only reason for which bail was granted to accused-respondent, impugned order is liable to be set aside – Impugned order suffer from shortcoming that relevant features of case have not at all been considered by High Court – Impugned Order set aside with liberty to accused-respondent to apply for bail afresh after surrendering and at an appropriate stage. (Paras 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
By order impugned, the High Court has granted the concession of bail to one of the accused persons, essentially on the consideration that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The appellant has pointed out that order granting bail to one of the alleged identically placed co-accused has been disapproved by this Court in the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 03.12.2020 is set aside with the requirement that respondent No. 2 shall surrender forthwith. In the interest of justice, it is provided that if the respondent No. 2 applies for bail afresh after surrendering and at an appropriate stage, such an application may be considered on its own merits.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, at whose behest FIR No. 438 of 2019 dated 10.07.2019 came to be registered at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[‘IPC’, for short.], has preferred this appeal by permission and by special leave, in challenge to the order dated 03.12.2020, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20894 of 2020.
2.1. By order impugned, the High Court has granted the concession of bail to one of the accused persons (respondent No. 2 herein), essentially on the consideration that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The appellant has, inter alia, pointed out that the order granting bail to one of the alleged identically placed co-accused has been disapproved by this Court in the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021, as passed in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6744 of 2020.
3. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The appellant had lodged the First Information Report on 10.07.2019 at about 09:08 p.m. with the allegations that his son Danish was attacked with knife and sharp weapons by as many as 7 persons when he was coming from his house for milking the cattle. It was further alleged that the victim Danish sustained grievous injuries because of such assault and died on the spot. Two persons, Nisar and Jalil, were said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. As many as 8 ante-mortem injuries were detected on the person of the deceased, most of which had been either incise wounds or stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest. One of the accused persons, Imran, was arrested on 11.07.2019. As per the assertion of the Investigating Officer, the other accused persons, including the present respondent No. 2, remained absconding wherefor, non-bailable warrants and then, even proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued. The other accused persons surrendered or were apprehended on different dates. The respondent No. 2 surrendered on 02.09.2019.
4. The application for bail moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2 was declined by the Sessions Court and then, the first bail application moved on his behalf in the High Court, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4842 of 2020 came to be dismissed on 10.02.2020 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 moved the second bail application bearing No. 20894 of 2020 that has been considered and allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 03.12.2020. Before that, the bail application of one of the co-accused, Fahim, bearing No. 6083 of 2020 was allowed by the High Court on 25.02.2020.
5. As regards the second bail application moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the frontal submission had been that identically placed persons had been granted bail and, therefore, he was also entitled to the same relief on parity. This submission was considered by the High Court and only for this reason that the co-accused had been granted bail, the High Court proceeded to accept the application made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and ordered his release on bail with certain conditions. The relevant aspects of the order impugned, carrying the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the opposition by the counsel for the State and consideration of the High Court, could be usefully reproduced as under: -
“Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general allegations against all the accused persons. It is next submitted that co-accused, namely, Faim, Nasir and Qamruddin have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6083 of 2020, 11840 of 2020 and 21839 of 2020 vide orders dated 25.2.2020, 17.6.2020 and 26.8.2020 respecti
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.
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) 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 ....
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....
An appellate court will cancel bail if the lower court fails to provide reasoned orders, ignores material evidence, disregards an accused's contumacious conduct in evading legal processes, or misappl....
(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) 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....
The cancellation of bail granted to an accused will have an impact on the bail granted to co-accused also.
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
