Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Somesh Chaurasia - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Anr. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).21783 of 2020
Decided on : 12-03-2021
Bail Cancellation - Criminal Procedure - CrPC 1973, Section 389(1) - Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 393, 365, 384, 386, 394, 396, 397, 399, 402 - MP Protection Act, 1980, Section 3(2) - Arms Act, Section 25(1)(1B)(a) - SC ST Act, Section 3(1-10) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court, including the provisions of bail under CrPC and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, MP Protection Act, Arms Act, and SC ST Act, and the court's decision on bail cancellation.
Fact of the Case:
The second respondent was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and granted bail. Subsequently, new criminal cases were filed against the respondent, and the State sought cancellation of bail due to the respondent's criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court declined to entertain the applications for cancellation of bail, but the Supreme Court ordered the immediate arrest of the respondent and provided security to the judicial officer overseeing the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the criminal history of the respondent, the filing of new criminal cases while on bail, and the failure of the authorities to arrest the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that despite the serious criminal charges and arrest warrants, the respondent continued to evade arrest, leading to a directive for immediate arrest and provision of security to the judicial officer.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court ordered the immediate arrest of the respondent and provided security to the judicial officer, emphasizing the preservation of the rule of law.
ORDER :
1. The second respondent has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Pending the disposal of the appeal against the conviction, the High Court by its order dated 3 February 2016 ordered a suspension of sentence under the provisions of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731[“CrPC”]. Two applications were moved before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (IA 6837 of 2019 and IA 5781 of 2019) for cancellation of bail and revocation of the order dated 3 February 2016 granting a suspension of sentence to the second respondent. These applications for cancellation of bail were filed by the petitioner as well as by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The application for cancellation of bail filed by the petitioner was on the basis that after the second respondent was granted a suspension of sentence on 3 February 2016, a First Information Report, being FIR No 143 of 2019, was registered against the second respondent at PS Hata, District Damoh on the allegation that while on bail, the second respondent had committed the murder of the father of the petitioner. In the application for cancellation of bail moved by the State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been submitted that the second respondent has two other convictions on the charge of murder. Moreover, it has been submitted that there is a similarity in that both the victims belong to the same family. The registration of the FIR at the behest of the petitioner was also mentioned in the application for cancellation of bail.
2. The application for cancellation of bail moved by the State of Madhya Pradesh contains the following averments in paragraph 8:
(a) It is submitted that in the first crime, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased Rajendra Pathak on 13.10.1998 who was going on his scooter and was confronted by the appellant and co-accused Chandu Thakur who were coming on a motorcycle from the opposite direction. At the relevant point of time the appellant Govind Singh fired through Katta on the deceased Rajendra Pathak which hit the deceased on his chest. After receiving the said shot the deceased ran to save his life and on noticing the same co-accused Chandu Thakur fired a shot which hit the deceased on his back. The deceased Rajendra Pathak succumbed to the said injuries. Based on the said incident, session trial was instituted and appellant was convicted for the murder of Rajendra Pathak and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 30.09.2008. It is thereafter Cr.A No.2353/2008 was filed by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court. It is also relevant to mention herein that the similarity of the present case with a case relating to deceased Rajendra Pathak is that the deceased in the present case Pappu @Ramakant Pathak and Kailash Pathak were all belonging to the same family.
(b) It is submitted that in the second crime, the appellant along with others committed the murder of Munna Vishwakarma. Based on the said incident, Sessions Trial No. 113/2005 was instituted and the appellant was convicted for the murder of Munna vide Judgment dated 27.10.2015. It is thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 3108/2015 was filed by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court.
(c) To put it differently, it can thus be seen that the appellant committed two crimes punishable under Section 302 IPC on the same date i.e. 11.5.2004 viz. the present case in which Ramakant Pathak and Kailash Pathak were killed and Munna Vishwakarma in respect to which Criminal Appeal No. 3108/2015 is pending.
(d) It would also be relevant to mention herein that the appellant committed another crime for offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) (1B)(a) of the Arms Act. In the said case too, the appellant was convicted an
The main legal point established is the obligation of the authorities to ensure the arrest of an accused with serious criminal charges and the preservation of the rule of law.
(1) India cannot have two parallel legal systems, one for rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and other for small men without resources and capabilities to obtain j....
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at stage of pre-trial bail – Such relief can ....
Bail granted for a bailable offence can be cancelled if the accused misuses their liberty by engaging in similar criminal activities or interfering with the investigation. The decision also highlight....
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted only in exceptional cases more particularly so in cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC.
(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....
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail, breach of bail conditions, and the possibility of pressurizing witnesses in non-compoundable offenses, leading to the cancellat....
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
