1. Appeal against the rejection of regular bail for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1469
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Hemchand @ Happi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14995 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court granted regular bail to the appellant, considering the length of incarceration, the absence of firearm injury attribution by the injured witness, and the likelihood of trial delay, concluding that the facts on record justified the relief.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 341, 451, 506, 120-B - Arms Act, 1959 - Appeal against rejection of bail - The appellant challenged the High Court's order rejecting bail application, asserting no firearm injury attributed to him and citing inordinate delay in trial due to numerous witnesses. The Court found merits in granting bail. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The Court noted the absence of direct attribution of a firearm injury to the appellant, the long duration of incarceration, and the potential for undue delay in trial as significant factors in allowing bail. (Paras 7, 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged under multiple IPC sections and the Arms Act, with bail denied by the High Court. The appeal arose after 17 months of incarceration amidst a case with 96 witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the Trial Court to grant bail under appropriate conditions, emphasizing the need for cooperation and maintaining the integrity of the trial process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail given the allegations and potential influence on witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the absence of a direct firearm injury being attributed to the appellant and the lengthy duration in custody warranted the reversal of the High Court's decision.
Result: The appeal is allowed, directing the release of the appellant on bail.
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The Court noted the absence of direct attribution of a firearm injury to the appellant, the long duration of incarceration, and the potential for undue delay in trial as significant factors in allowing bail. (Paras 7, 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged under multiple IPC sections and the Arms Act, with bail denied by the High Court. The appeal arose after 17 months of incarceration amidst a case with 96 witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the Trial Court to grant bail under appropriate conditions, emphasizing the need for cooperation and maintaining the integrity of the trial process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail given the allegations and potential influence on witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the absence of a direct firearm injury being attributed to the appellant and the lengthy duration in custody warranted the reversal of the High Court's decision.
Result: The appeal is allowed, directing the release of the appellant on bail.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant cites lack of attributed firearm injury and trial delay; State argues risk of witness tampering given the number of injured witnesses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Based on the facts on record, the court determined that the case for granting bail is made out. (Para 10 )
4. Bail may be granted considering the duration of incarceration, the specific role of the accused, and the likelihood of trial delay. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal allowed and bail granted subject to conditions, cooperation in trial, and the threat of cancellation upon infraction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. What factors influence the court's decision to grant regular bail in criminal cases?
The court evaluates the facts on record, including the specific allegations against the accused, the duration of incarceration, and the potential for trial delay due to the volume of witnesses to be examined. (Para 7 , 10 )
7. What are the consequences of violating bail conditions?
Any infraction of the conditions imposed by the court for the release of the accused on bail shall entail the cancellation of the bail granted. (Para 13 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Crl. Misc Bail Application. No.8207 of 2024.
3. The appellant herein has been booked for the crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 16 of 2023 dated 16.01.2023 lodged with Police Station Mandawar (Dausa) Dausa District, with respect to offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 341, 451, 506 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 3 , 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , 1959.
4. An application seeking regular bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 31.07.2024, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
5. This Court vide its order dated 07.11.2024, issued notice in the instant matter.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no fire arm injury has been attributed to the appellant herein even by the injured witness Khem Raj, who has not stated in his statement that the appellant herein had fired his gun at him, although, it may have been so recorded in the FIR. She further submitted that there are as many as 96 witnesses to be examined and the appellant has been in jail for the last about seventeen months, the trial would be inordinately delayed. In the circumstances, the impugned order(s) may be set aside and relief of bail may be granted to the appellant herein.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State with reference to his Counter Affidavit submitted that there are as many as eleven injured witnesses and the matter is slated for 09.01.2025 before the Trial Court and at this stage any liberty granted to the appellant herein would prejudice the trial as there is a likelihood of influencing the witnesses and particularly the injured witness. In the circumstances, the appeal may be dismissed.
9. By way of reply, learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No.5172/2024) and order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the case of Akbar Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No.7505/2024). She submitted that similar relief may be granted to the appellant herein.
10. Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out.
11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
"The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 16 of 2023 mentioned above."
12. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.
13. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
14. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.
