Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 362

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ramayan Singh – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2168 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 14988 of 2023] With Criminal Appeal No(s). 2169 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 355 of 2024]
Decided On : 19-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devvrat, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. Manoj Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sneh Suman, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Provision for being released on bail draws appropriate balance between public interest in administration of justice and protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of case. Grant of bail is to be secured within bounds of law.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Petition for cancellation – Charge-sheet came filed under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 – Grant of bail involves exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously and injudiciously – Accused person(s) were involved in a broad daylight murder which led to closure of a market for a prolonged period of 10 days due to their overwhelming influence in area – High Court ought not to have granted Respondents bail in relation to proceedings emanating from FIR on account of seriousness of crime, conduct of accused person(s) and overall impact of crime on society at large – Bail cancelled. (Paras 15, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal seeks to assail correctness of a Judgment of Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 24.04.2023 wherein, High Court allowed Respondent No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and accordingly enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained therein.
Findings of Court:
Accused person(s) shall be taken into custody forthwith. A copy of this Judgment shall be forwarded to Trial Court and PS Lalganj, Basti, Uttar Pradesh for onward action and necessary compliance. Trial Court is directed to conclude trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal i.e., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 14988 of 2023, seeks to assail the correctness of a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) dated 24.04.2023 wherein, the High Court allowed Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal’s / Respondent No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and accordingly enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained therein (the “Impugned Order”).

3. By an order dated 31.10.2023, a co-accused i.e., Punit Pal was enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The appeal filed by the Appellant against that order has been tagged with the present appeal vide an order dated 02.01.2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 355 of 2024. Moreover, as the facts and the questions involved in the present appeal(s) are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him. It was also alleged that although the Appellant and Rahul i.e., the Driver attempted to intervene, they were injured by the accused persons. The accused persons snatched the mobile phones of the Deceased and the driver; as well as a gold chain belonging to the Deceased and ran away from the spot of the incident. The Deceased was initially rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Bankati, however, due to the serious nature of the injuries he was referred to the District Hospital, Basti and thereafter to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 10.02.2022.

5. On the same day i.e., 10.02.2022, (i) an inquest report of the person of the Deceased was prepared wherein injuries were recorded on the head, hand and knee; and (ii) a post-mortem was conducted which revealed 4 (four) major ante mortem head injuries on the person of the Deceased. Pertinently, the cause of death was identified as coma due to ante mortem head injuries.

6. Notably, Respondent No. 2 came to be apprehended in relation to the FIR on 05.01.2022 and the murder weapon i.e., a bat used in the assault of the Deceased was also recovered at his instance. On the other hand, Punit Pal came to be apprehended on 07.01.2022. A chargesheet came to be filed in relation to the FIR on 14.03.2022 under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (“IPC”) read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (the “Act”) (the “Chargesheet”). Pursuant to the filing of the Chargesheet, committal proceedings ensued and thereafter charges were framed against the accused person(s) vide an order dated 19.04.2023.

7. Respondent No. 2 preferred an application seeking the grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR before the Learned Sessions Judge, Basti (the “Trial Court”). Vide an order dated 15.03.2022, the aforesaid bail application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking the grant of bail which came to be allowed by the High Court vide the Impugned Order.

8. On the other hand, Punit Pal preferred an application seeking the grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR before the Trial