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

1999 Supreme(All) 793

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.C.Gupta
RAJEEV SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 21 May 1999
Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 18394 of 1998

Advocates Appeared:
MURLI DHAR MISHRA, Sri Deewan,

Bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the same has been allowed against well-established principles of law governing grant of bail, which will include the case where bail has been allowed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the other side.

Headnote:

BAIL - CANCELLATION - GROUNDS - ARBITRARY GRANT OF BAIL WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE OTHER SIDE - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - SECTION 439 CR. P. C. - SECTION 482 CR. P. C. - FULL BENCH DECISIONS OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - RAM LAL YADAV AND DR. VINOD NARAYAN CASES.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, the complainant in a case involving the murder of five persons and injuries to five others, sought cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties, accused of participating in the incident with firearms, on the ground that the bail was granted in an arbitrary manner without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bail was granted to the opposite parties without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the State and the complainant, and that the learned Sessions Judge did not enter into the merits of the case while passing the order granting bail.

Issues: 1. Whether the bail was granted to the opposite parties in an arbitrary manner without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the State and the complainant? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge entered into the merits of the case while passing the order granting bail?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that bail once granted to an accused can normally be cancelled only on the ground of its misuse, but bail can also be cancelled if the same has been allowed against well-established principles of law governing grant of bail, which will include the case where bail has been allowed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the other side. 2. The court further held that the order of this Court dated 13-10-98, which directed the courts below to consider the bail application of the opposite parties on the same day, never meant or could be construed to mean that the bail application was to be disposed of on the same day even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the State or the complainant or that the provisions of Section 439 Cr. P. C. were to be given or go by.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and cancelled the bail granted to the opposite parties, directing the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application of bail of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the State and the complainant.

J. C. GUPTA, J.

Bail granted to op posite parties No. 2 and 3 by the trial Court by the order dated 23-10-98 is sought to be cancelled by means of this application which has been moved by the complainant before this Court.

2. In relation to an incident which allegedly occurred on 26-1-97 at 7. 30 p. m.

in which five persons were gunned down and five other received fire-arm injuries, the F. I. R. was lodged at 9. 10 p. m. and case crime No. 33 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 and 395 IPC PS. Kotwali, district Hamirpur was registered. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 armed with fire arms are said to have participated in the firing. The police investigated the case and after its completion submitted charge sheet wherein the said opposite parties were shown as absconders because they could not be arrested despite proceeding drawn under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. It is alleged that the said opposite parties did not surrender themselves before the Court below instead they filed a writ petition No. 598/97 and the same was dismissed by a Bench of this Court by the order dated 4-3-97 with the observation that the petitioners could move an application under Section 156 Cr. P. C. before the con cerned Magistrate for redressal of their grievances in respect of the cross F. I. R. and that they could approach the Principal Secretary of Home U. P. Govt. or D. G. Police for passing appropriate orders for getting the investigation of the case done through C. B. C. I. D. Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel, opposite party No. 2 then filed writ petition No. 1049 (MD) of 1997 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court seeking quashing of the F. I. R. and for issu ing a further direction for transferring the investigation to some other agency includ ing C. B. C. I. D. . After the exchange of the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit the said writ petition was also dismissed by a Division Bench by the order, dated 12-5-97. In pursuance of the direction of the Court, the State Government took a decision on the application of said op posite party that there existed no reasonable cause to get the case inves tigated by the C. B. C. I. D. and the Court took the view that since the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet submitted, nothing remained to be investigated. With these conservations the writ petition was dismissed. The said respondents then made a further effort to get the investigation made through C. B. C. I. D. by moving an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 4446 of 1997. The said application came up for hearing before Honble R. N. Ray, J. and it

was submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that if C. B. C. I. D. submitted a final report then the applicants could be precluded from getting the benefit be cause the local police was biased and by filing charge sheet the defence of the ap plicant would be prejudiced. The Honble Judge disposed of the said application by passing the following order:

"in the circumstances, this petition is final ly disposed of with a direction that the C. B. C. I. D. may file charge sheet within 4 months or its final report as the case may be, then the Court below is to act upon according to law and till that period of 4 months further proceeding in the above case shall remain stayed and the applicants may not be arrrested in con nection with the above case but they must be available to the I. O. concerned for interroga tion. "

Thereafter this Court by its order dated 1-9-97 modified the earlier order dated 8-8-97 in the following terms:

"illness slip has been filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the op posite party that upon miss-tatement of the facts and concealment of facts, petitioner managed to get the orders as no C. B. C. I. D. investigation is pending.

Let it be listed in the next supplementary cause list. In the meantime, the earlier order stands modifi

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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