Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 364
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Jadunath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar & Anr. Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2170 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7961-7963 of 2023)
Decided On : 19-04-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv. Dr. M.k Ravi, Adv. Mr. Denson Joseph, Adv. M/S. Varun Thakur & Associates, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Period of incarceration cannot be sole ground for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 – Suspension of sentence and grant of bail – Applicants had sought for suspension of sentence and grant of bail through these Appeals on primary ground that they are in jail for more than ten years – Appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B of IPC – Complainant has challenged impugned order of granting bail on primary ground that accused persons are dreaded criminals as initially they have committed two murders and later co-accused killed a Police Constable – Complainant fears that after being released from jail, they will hatch another conspiracy for eliminating complainant and his family members – Two accused respondents despite their period of incarceration of more than 10 years would not be entitled to grant of bail for their subsequent conduct for which they are facing separate trial – Impugned order of High Court granting bail to them set aside. (Paras 8, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order, three Applicants- Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar were granted bail during pendency of their Criminal appeals, with condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with two sureties. Appellant is Complainant and has challenged the order of granting bail through these appeals.
Findings of Court:
Two accused respondents namely Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar despite their period of incarceration of more than 10 years would not be entitled to grant of bail for their subsequent conduct for which they are facing separate trial.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a Common Order passed by Allahabad High Court on 08.02.2023 while adjudicating three Criminal Appeals- Criminal Appeal No. 5033 of 2019 (Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 5100 of 2019 (Chandra Kumar @ Chandu vs State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 5102 of 2019 (Rishi Kumar vs State of U.P.). The Applicants had sought for suspension of sentence and grant of bail through these Appeals on the primary ground that they are in jail for more than ten years. Also, two co-accused Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar had been granted bail by coordinate bench of same High Court. By the Impugned order, the three Applicants- Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar were granted bail during the pendency of their Criminal appeals, with condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Fifty Thousand) along with two sureties. Appellant is the Complainant and has challenged the order of granting bail through these appeals.
3. The three Applicants have filed separate Criminal Appeals before High Court against order of Sessions Court dated 06.06.2019 whereby total five Accused namely, Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, Rishi Kumar, Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 18601[In short, “IPC”]. They were sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302/149 of IPC along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. By the same order two other accused- Monu and Amit Kumar were acquitted of all the Charges.
4. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows:
4.1 On 11.02.2011, the appellant/Complainant- Jadunath Singh submitted a Written Report narrating the incident leading to present Criminal case. He stated that in Village Bhogaon there is a plot illegally taken by Arvind Kumar (accused- respondent). He was removed from its illegal possession by Rajvir, son of the Complainant, in accordance with the order of District Magistrate.
4.2 On the same day around 11.45 AM, Complainant Jadunath Singh along with his son Rajvir, Pawan Kumar, Rawan Kumar, Upendra, Chedalal were sitting together, discussing the disputed plot. At this time, Arvind Kumar, armed with country made pistol (katta of 315 bore), his two sons- Chandra Kumar @ Chandu armed with katta and Rishi Kumar armed with katta along with Amit Kumar, armed with a rifle and two unknown persons with rifles, arrived there in white coloured Maruti 800 Car and immediately opened fire at the complainant and all other persons sitting with him.
4.3 The Complainant and others ran into a nearby building owned by one Harvilas. They were chased by accused persons along with continuous firing. They managed to intrude in the room in which Rajvir and Pawan entered while hiding and escaping from the shots. There the accused aimed at Rajvir and Pawan, shot them dead and thus caused the death of both these victims and also injured Ravita- daughter in law of Harvilas, causing injuries upon her. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. The injured persons were taken to Hospital.
4.4 The Medical Officer on duty declared Rajvir and Pawan Kumar as brought dead. Ravita’s treatment is under process. As per testimony of Dr. Ankit Nikant, Pawan’s death was caused by fire arm injury on his chest and excessive bleeding from the same. Rajvir’s death is caused from excessive bleeding from the 9 firearm wounds found on his body. Two injuries were found on Rajvir’s shoulder and one injury was on his chest.
5. On the basis of the complaint given by Jadunath Singh (Appellant), FIR No. 1411 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dist. Mainpuri under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B of IPC against five named accused and two unknown. After investigation Chargesheet was submitted against all the seven accused. However, three separate trials were registered being Session Trial No. 48 of 2013- State of U.P. vs Chandra Kumar and three others, namely Pr
