SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2022 [Arising Out of Petition for Special Leave To Appeal (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2019]
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's husband was shot dead in a conspiracy hatched by the respondent No.2. The trial court held the respondent No.2 guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court granted bail to the respondent No.2, which was challenged by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court failed to offer any reasons for granting bail to the respondent No.2. The Court found that the High Court did not factor in the relevant material before passing the order and failed to offer any reason for exercising its discretion in favor of the respondent No.2.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court rightly exercised the power conferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for granting bail in favor of the respondent No.2.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. It highlighted the need for the High Court to consider the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the nature of supporting evidence before granting bail.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order granting bail to the respondent No.2, canceled the bail bonds, and directed the respondent No.2 to surrender forthwith. The judgment did not preclude the respondent No.2 from applying afresh for bail at a later stage if new circumstances are brought to light.
JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th September, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 609 of 2018 whereunder the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code1[For short the Cr.P.C.] was allowed and he was enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. The original complainant, wife of the deceased has preferred this appeal by way of special leave against the said order before this Court.
3. Initially, petitions for special leave to appeal were filed against two respondents namely, Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Babu [respondent No. 2] and Sonu [respondent No. 3]. However, by an order dated 2nd July, 2019, the petition qua the respondent No. 3 was dismissed and notice was issued in respect of the second respondent while taking note of the fact that vide judgment dated 20th December, 2012, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2012, bail granted to the said respondent had been cancelled. As a result, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5103 of 2019 filed by the respondent No. 3 was disposed of.
4. On the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Meena Devi, wife of the deceased, FIR No. 173 of 2012 was registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Badaun for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2[For short the IPC]. It was stated by the appellant/complainant that when she and her husband, Narain Singh were returning home on a motorcycle in the evening of 16th June, 2012, after having visited Badaun where he was to appear in the Court in a case pending trial against the respondent No. 2 herein, four out of the five accused persons came in a Jeep, intercepted them and started firing gunshots at Narain Singh on point blank range. Though the complainants brother, Sanjeev Kumar Singh accompanied by one Hari Singh, who were following the deceased and his wife, had tried to save him and take him to the District Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on route. The complainant stated that the dispute between the parties related to the ownership of a school namely, Janta Junior High School, Madhukar Police Station, Tehsil Shahbad, where her husband was employed as the Head Master. Earlier, on 13th December, 2011, the same set of the accused persons had abducted her husband from Asafpur Railway Station, Faizganj, Behata. Respondent No. 2 who claimed ownership of the aforesaid school was instrumental in the said abduction. A case relating to the said abduction was pending trial in a Court in Badaun where the deceased was the prime witness. While in detention in jail at Badaun, respondent No. 2 had hatched a conspiracy with four co-accused persons and planned to eliminate the deceased against whom he bore a grudge of having deposed against him as a witness in the kidnapping case.
5. After the investigation was complete in FIR No.173 of 2012, the respondent No.2 was charged with the offence under Section 302 read with 149 and 120B IPC. Charges were framed against him and the coaccused persons on 3rd January, 2014. During the trial, respondent No.2 was admitted to bail. Vide common judgment dated 6th January, 2018, the Sessions Court held the respondent No. 2 and the other co accused persons as guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B IPC. Respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Resultantly, bail granted to the respondent No. 2 and three other co-accused was cancelled.
6. The role of the respondent No. 2 in having hatched a conspiracy with the other co-accused persons of shooting down the deceased, has been elaborately dealt with in paras 53 to 55 of the judgment dated 6th January, 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun wherein the tes
Abdul Basit alias Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another
Dipak Shubhash chandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia And Another
Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Prakash Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Another
(1) Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.(2) For cancelling bail once granted, Court....
(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....
The considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct. Factors to be considered for anticipatory bail include the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail and the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, following well-established principles, and not in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
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....
The discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offence, evidence, and potential obstruction of justice.
(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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.