IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Gajendra Singh – Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 50723/2021
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Cancellation of Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. - [Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the cancellation of bail for the respondent Gajendra Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, who was accused of assaulting and causing the death of Shyamlal. The Sessions Judge had granted bail to the respondent based on observations that were found to be contrary to the record.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the observations made by the Sessions Judge while granting bail were not supported by the record and were contrary to the facts of the case. The Court also observed that the respondent's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who were granted bail, as the respondent was charged with the offense of murder.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, which was found to be based on incorrect observations and contrary to the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court referred to various legal principles and decisions related to the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for a judicious exercise of discretion and consideration of relevant factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. The Court also highlighted the importance of not granting bail based on irrelevant considerations and the need to balance the interests of justice and individual liberty.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order granting bail to the respondent and directed the respondent to surrender before the Trial Court. Additionally, the Court directed administrative action against the Sessions Judge for passing orders contrary to law.
JUDGMENT
1. This application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been registered for cancellation of bail on suo motu exercise of power by this Court while considering the bail application of the co-accused Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu in Criminal Appeal No.5870/2021.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Upendra Singh Jatav made a complaint to the police that about 6-7 days back his neighbor Shyamlal was beaten by Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Daplu S/o Nathu Singh Narwariya and respondent-Gajendra Singh Narwariya and thereafter they took the injured to Gwalior and from thereafter, whereabouts of Shyamlal are not known. On the aforesaid information, an enquiry was initiated and statement of witnesses in Merg enquiry were recorded. The Police found that in fact the deceased Shyamlal was beaten by Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Daplu @ Omkar and respondent-Gajendra by Lathi and thereafter they took the deceased to Gwalior and got him admitted in J.A. Hospital Gwalior in the fake name of Nathuram S/o Hukum Singh. The injured Shyamlal, who was admitted in the hospital by co- accused Omkar Singh in the name of Nathuram s/o Hukum, expired on 08/06/2020. Accordingly, the dead body of Shyamlal was handed over to Omkar Singh after the postmortem. It appears that the dead body of Shyamlal, who was admitted in the fake name of Nathuram, was not brought in the village and his cremation was done somewhere else and since whereabouts of Shyamlal was not known, therefore, his neighbor Upendra Singh had made a report to the Police.
3. During the Merg enquiry, statement of witnesses were recorded, who claimed that the name of deceased was Nathuram and ultimately those statements were found to be incorrect. Thus, the Police after completing investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Omkar Singh and present respondent-Gajendra Singh apart from Ghanshyam, Ravindra, Vinod Sharma, Smt. Sangeeta, Upendra Singh Jatav, Jarman Singh Narwariya, Hotam Singh Narwariya and Sudamalal Kadere. The allegations against the remaining co-accused persons are that they had given false information to the Police. Thus, there are two sets of accused persons which are as under :
1. Sikander Singh Narwariya @ Lalu, Omkar @ Daplu and Gajendra Singh (respondent) against whom it is alleged that not only they had assaulted the deceased Shyamlal by Lathi, but they took him to the hospital and got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and after the death of Shyamlal on 08/06/2020, who was admitted in the fake name of Nathuram, his dead-body was received by co-accused Omkar and it was not brought to the village and the cremation was done somewhere else in Gwalior itself.
2. Whereas, the allegations against the remaining co-accused persons are that they had given false information to the Police that Nathuram had fallen from the roof of the house and he died in the hospital.
4. The co-accused Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu filed Criminal Appeal No.5870/2021 for grant of bail and while arguing the said bail application, it was submitted that the Sessions Judge, Bhind has granted bail to the present respondent in BA No.978/2021 and the case of Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu is identical to that of the present respondent-Gajendra Singh.
5. While considering the submissions made by the counsel for Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, this Court found that the Sessions Judge, Bhind had granted bail by observing certain aspects, which were not born out of the record and in fact they were contrary to the record. As already pointed out, there are two sets of accused persons in the present case. Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Omkar alias Daplu and Gajendra are alleged to have assaulted the deceased Shyamlal by Lathi and thereafter they took him to the hospital and got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and after the death of Shyamlal on 8/6/2020, his
Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh
Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118
Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P.(2014) 16 SCC 508
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, an....
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once....
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for proper reasoning in bail orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, following well-established principles, and not in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
(1) Application for cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than challenging order passed by High Court/Appellate Court releasing accused on bail.(2) Bail cannot be granted without looking....
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
While considering an application for bail, all the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvem....
The main legal point established is that the grounds for granting and cancelling bail should consider the seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, and likelihood of interference with justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.