AMINUDDIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER on 15 March 2021

1. Leave granted.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of theConstitution, the informant at whose behest FIR No 438 of 2019 wasregistered on 10 July 2019 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj,U.P., has moved this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned SingleJudge dated 25 February 2020 granting bail to the second respondent.

3. Briefly stated, the First Information Report was registered atthe behest of the appellant who is the father of the deceased. The FIRstates that on 10 July 2019 at about 5.15 pm, the son of the appellant wasproceeding for the purpose of milking the cattle, at which stage, sevenpersons residing on the same street attacked him with knives, as a resultof which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. A postmor-tem report was conducted at 1 am on 11 July 2019. As many as eightante mortem injuries were detected. The statement of the appellant wasrecorded on 11 July 2019. After the arrest of one of the accused, Imran,on 11 July 2019, the Investigating Officer is stated to have made effortsbetween 12 and 27 July 2019 to apprehend the other accused, but theremaining accused were absconding. On 30 July 2019, a non-bailable A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awarrant was issued. On 2 August 2019, a proclamation was issued underSection 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Among the otheraccused, the second respondent surrendered before the court on 29 Au-gust 2019. On 31 October 2019, the application for bail moved on behalfof the second respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kasganj.The learned Sessions Judge observed thus:B

“The applicant is nominated in the FIR. There is direct charge ofthe murder of the son of the applicant with knives. In the PostMortem Report the cause of death of the deceased is due to Anti-Mortem injuries and shocked. There are 8 injuries mentioned inthe Post Mortem Report. Hence in my opinion in view of the en-Ctire facts, heinous crime offence, and circumstances, the accusedis not liable to be released on bail. Hence the bail application hasbeen got dismissed.”

4. Thereafter, the High Court was moved in Criminal Miscella-neous Bail Application No 6083 of 2020. The High Court by its orderDdated 25 February 2020 directed that the second respondent be enlargedon bail.

5. Mr Anilendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant submits that the only reason why the High Court was per-suaded to grant bail was “the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Consti-tution of India”. It has been submitted that the High Court has not indi-Ecated any other reason and has completely ignored the seriousness ofthe offence, the nature of the injuries and the involvement, prima facie,of the accused, who are residing in the same locality who are named inthe FIR.

6. Pursuant to the notice that was issued by this Court on 18 De-Fcember 2020, the State of U.P. has entered appearance through MsBansuri Swaraj, learned counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed. TheState has supported the contention of the appellant. On 19 February2021, after service was completed, time was granted both to the State aswell as to the counsel for the second respondent to file a counter affida-vit. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the State of UP, noGcounter has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. A letter hasbeen circulated on behalf of the second respondent seeking a furtheradjournment. However, having due regard to the fact that the appellantseeks to challenge an order of the High Court granting bail to the secondrespondent in a serious offence involving the murder of the son of theHappellant, we see no reason to grant any further adjournment having AMINUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

regard to the fact that sufficient time has already been granted on 19February 2021.

7. The circumstances would indicate that a brutal murder has beencommitted of the son of the appellant. The postmortem report wouldindicate as many as eight ante mortem injuries. The offence is alleged tohave taken place in broad day light. The First Information Report beingCase Crime No 438 of 2019 was registered at about 2108 hours, withina period of four hours of the incident which is alleged to have taken placeat 1715 hours on the same day. After the investigation was completed,the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent court underSection 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In several judg-ments of this Court, the need for the High Court to adduce reasons whilegranting bail has been underscored. At this stage, we may advert to therecent decision in Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar[1], which was relied on byMs Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel for the State of UP. Speaking for atwo-Judge Bench, one of us (Justice D Y Chandrachud, J) observed:

“25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on thefacts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the pur-pose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise ofopen justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that fac-tors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejectionor the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justiceis premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, butshould manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The dutyof Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this com-mitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty ofindividuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the inter-ests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who com-mit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they havearrived at a conclusion.

27. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish thereasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of thenon-application of mind which may require the intervention of thisCourt.”

8. In the present case, the High Court has merely observed thatbail was being granted after considering the submissions and having re- A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Agard to the “larger mandate of Article 21”. There can be no manner ofdoubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a consti-tutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed byall courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious of-fence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to benecessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of crimi-Bnal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of acrime is held to account. Having regard to the settled principles whichgovern the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a casesuch as the present, we are of the view that the order of the High Courtdoes not clearly pass muster. No case for the grant of bail is made out. InCgranting bail, the High Court has failed to notice relevant considerationswhich ought to have been, but have not been taken into account.

9. In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal and set asidethe impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 25 February2020. As a consequence of this order, the second respondent shall surren-Dder forthwith.

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H