The grant of bail in serious offences must be supported by valid and cogent reasons, and the gravity of the offence alleged is an important factor for considering the question of grant of bail.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a case for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by the Trial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High Court has allowed the bail application of the respondent no. 2. The complainant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition questioning legality of the order granting bail to the respondent no.2.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who was the brother of the complainant/appellant, had received fatal injuries and died between the night intervening 16/17.06.2020.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking, in substance, cancellation of the order granting bail is that there was a long standing rivalry between the deceased and the respondent no. 2 and on 16.06.2020 evening itself there was a scuffle between the two in which the deceased had received injuries and he had lodged a complaint in his own handwriting with the police station at 08.00 p.m. (which was registered subsequently on the next date). After lodging FIR, the deceased had gone to the hospital for treatment. It is contended that the respondent no. 2 also reached the hospital and according to the appellant, the call records would show that he called his son to the hospital who then attacked the deceased with knife causing grievous injuries on account of which the deceased expired. It is further submitted that in this background the bail applications of the respondent no. 2 were twice rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court has granted the bail without considering these aspects and without assigning any cogent reasons. It is also submitted that after being released on bail there are allegations against the respondent no. 2 threatening the family members of the deceased. It is also contended that the charges have now been framed against the respondent no. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.

5. Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana has supported the case of the appellant and submitted that when twice the bail has been rejected by the Trial Court with detailed reasons, the High Court ought to have given proper reasons for granting bail and could not have passed the order without assigning such reasons.

6. Per contra, Mr. Shishir Mathur, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the High Court has considered the discrepancies with regard to the role assigned to the respondent no. 2 in the FIR and the statement of the complainant and has also considered the CCTV footage which was filed before the High Court and then granted bail.

7. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent no.1, as well as Mr. Shishir Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (accused) and perused the record.

8. What we notice from the impugned order is that the High Court, while granting bail, has only made the following observations and passed the order for grant of bail:

As per the FIR, the petitioner had allegedly caught hold of the left hand of the deceased and Manish and Piyush @ Passu had inflicted knife blows upon the deceased, whereas the complainant got his supplementary statement recorded by improving his version that the petitioner and Deepak had come running and asked the boy to kill him (deceased) and ensure that he might not survive. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2020. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

9. It is settled law that when the Trial Court has dismissed the bail application (and in the present case it has been dismissed twice), what is expected from the High Court, while taking a view different from that of the Trial Court, some cog