SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1598

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ajit Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttarakhand And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1347 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1731 of 2024)
Decided on : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Advocate, Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate and Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Advocate, Ms. Ishita Bist, Advocate, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Verma, Advocate, Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aakash Sirohi, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 504 and 506 - Murder of appellant's two children - Bail granted to respondent no.2 on medical grounds - High Court's order questioned on grounds of serious allegations and lack of conditions imposed. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 14, 15)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail should be considered in light of the severity of charges and the necessity of maintaining trial integrity. Medical reasons alone are insufficient when serious allegations exist. (Paras 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, father of two children allegedly murdered, appeals against the bail granted to respondent no.2 based on health issues. Serious charges under IPC were levied against respondents. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The High Court's bail order is set aside; respondent no.2 must surrender due to the seriousness of the allegations against him. The jail must ensure medical care as needed. (Paras 15, 16)

Issues: The main issues involve whether serious allegations justify continued incarceration despite medical conditions warranting bail. (Paras 14, 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that serious allegations against a defendant should outweigh medical considerations when determining bail eligibility, noting that release on bail without conditions risks trial integrity. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: Appeal allowed; bail set aside; respondent no.2 directed to surrender.

Table of Content
1. appellant's familial ties and crime details. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 8)
2. arguments regarding bail based on medical grounds. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court analysis on serious allegations vs bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. order for respondent's surrender and medical treatment. (Para 16)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is father of two children, who are alleged to have been murdered by respondent no.2 herein.

3. Respondent no.2 was arrested in connection with the crime registered vide FIR No.363/2021 dated 15.06.2021 with P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand under Sections 302 , 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('IPC').

4. Contending that he has delicate health, he approached the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for grant of bail, inter alia, on medical grounds.

5. By the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, the High Court has considered the Fourth Bail Application No.11/2023 filed by respondent No. 2 herein and has granted bail on medical grounds.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, who is the informant and father of the deceased children, has filed this appeal.

7. During the pendency of this matter, by order dated 07.01.2025, we had directed respondent No. 1/State to present respondent no.2 before the Medical Board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to submit a report within a period of three weeks from that day.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State has produced a copy of the Report dated 03.02.2025. The Report reads as under -

'No.F.-46-1/2025/MB-Estt.(CNC) Date: 03.02.2025

Sub: - Report of Medial Board for Medical examination of Sh. Rakesh Mishra alias Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu Mishra (UHID No.105762346 and CV No.16020/21) as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 07.01.2025 vide SLP No.1731/2024 titled Ajit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr reg.

xxx

The meeting of the Medical Board was held under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ambuj Roy, Prof. Deptt. Of Cardiology on 03.02.2025 (Monday) at 11.30 AM I Room 13, Near MS Office, AIIMS, New Delhi.

The following members of the medical board were present in the meeting:

1. Dr. Ambuj Roy Prof. of Cardiology Chairperson

2. Dr. Sanjay Wadhwa Prof. Of PMR Member

3. Dr. Pradeep R. Associate Prof. of CTVS Member

4. Dr. P. Rajashekar AMS, CTC Member

5. Dr. Satyavir Yadav Asso. Prof. of Cardiology Member Secretary

Medical Board Opinion : - Patient (UHID No.105762346 and CV No.16020/21) was examined and relevant investigations were done. The old medical records of AIIMS, Delhi were reviewed, and the following medical condition was confirmed: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Dilated Cardiomyopathy with severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF 20-25%) with NYHA functional Class III. This is a chronic progressive medical condition requiring regular treatment and medical follow up. The patient needs to continue follow up from AIIMS, Delhi Cardiology OPD as per previous registration or other tertiary hospital and adhere to medical advice as given from time to time.'

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is a case where the allegations were made against four persons and the brother of respondent no.2 and two other persons have already been exonerated by the police themselves, inasmuch as no charge-sheet has been filed as against them; and respondent no.2 was arrested and was in jail. However, the benefit of bail has been granted to him solely due to medical reasons. She submitted that having regard to the opinion of the Medical Board, respondent no.2 can be given medical attention for his condition as well as the follow-up treatment as and when required either before AIIMS, New Delhi or in any other suitable hospital. The allegations against respondent no.2 herein are serious. The High Court has lost sight of this fact and also the fact that there have been no condition imposed for the grant of bail on medical grounds to respondent no.2 herein. She fur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top