LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 11 December 2021

[2021] 9 S.C.R. 629

LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2021)

DECEMBER 11, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD

AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 ands.120B – Arms Act – s.27/30 – Two FIRs were filed, both pertainedto the same incident – There was a clash of two groups by usingfirearms which resulted in indiscriminate firing from both sides –First FIR No.406 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188, 120BIPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act) was filed by the appellant allegingthat he along with his brother and some other persons had gone toseek return of the money which he had given to a person of theanother group – It is alleged that they were fired upon and as aresult of the indiscriminate firing, appellant’s brother died and otherswere injured – Second FIR No.407 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149,307 IPC) was filed by another group, however, they alleged thatappellant and his group were the aggressors and they had firedupon them – The High Court granted bail to the accused persons inthe first FIR and in the second FIR the accused persons i.e. appellantand others were denied anticipatory bail – On appeal, held: Aperusal of the order in the proceedings relating to the first FIR inbail application indicates that the Single Judge of the High Courtthough has taken note of details of the incident and the contentionof the parties, has not analyzed the same to record the satisfactionto enlarge the accused on bail – The conclusion recorded by theSingle Judge of the High Court is almost verbatim similar to theportion which is extracted and disapproved by the Supreme Courtin Mahipal’s case – The accused were enlarged on bail though thecharges were grave, which included s.302 IPC and s.27/30 of theArms Act – The fact that the said accused persons had spent 10, 7and 4 months respectively in custody have weighed with the HighCourt which could not have been a mitigating factor when chargesof such serious nature are to be tried – Further, one of the accusedhad seven cases registered against him and investigation is not yet

A

B

CDEF

GH

630SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Acomplete in the second FIR – One person died due to firearm wound– So, release of the accused persons at this juncture not justified –As far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the appellant himself statedin the first FIR that accused persons caught hold of his brother’slicensed pistol, which would indicate that appellant and his groupwere also armed – So, it is too premature at this stage to arrive atBany conclusion as to which group was the aggressor – The Stateindicated that one of the reasons for incomplete investigation wasthat one person was still undergoing treatment, that itself makes itclear that injuries were not of simple nature – The allegations, inthe instant case were of serious nature which would require a detailedCinvestigation and recovery of weapons in the course of investigationwhich is yet to be completed – Thus, it is not a fit case where theappellants need to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail – Also,the bail order granting bail to the accused in first FIR set aside andtheir bail bonds stand cancelled.

DDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021 in theproceedings relating to FIR No. 406 of 2020 in Bail Applicationindicates that the Single Judge of the High Court though hastaken note of details of the incident and the contention of theEparties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction toenlarge the accused on bail. [Para 12][637-F-G]

Conclusion

2. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it isnoticed that the conclusion recorded by the Single Judge of theHigh Court is almost verbatim similar to the portion which isFextracted and disapproved by this Court in Mahipal’s case. It isnoticed that with such sweeping observation made, the accusedin FIR No. 406 of 2020 have been ordered to be enlarged on bailthough the charges thereunder are grave, which include Section302 IPC and Section 27/30 of the Arms Act. The allegation is ofindiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of theGbrother of the complainant. It is no doubt true, that theinvestigation has been carried out in the said case and thechargesheet is stated to have been filed. Further, the fact thatthe said accused persons had spent 10, 7 and 4 months respectively H

in custody seems to have weighed with the Court which couldnot have been a mitigating factor when charges of such seriousnature are to be tried. The details furnished by the State wouldindicate that seven other cases are registered against one of theaccused who is also alleged to be a part of the group of the accusedin the instant case. In such circumstance, when the said personsare also stated to have been attacked by the rival group as allegedin the counter complaint in FIR No. 407 of 2020 and theinvestigation is not yet complete in the said proceedings, it wouldnot be appropriate for the said persons who were part of onegroup which had clashed against the other to be in a position toalter the nature of consideration when ultimately a compositeinvestigation to complete the process in FIR No. 407 of 2020would also be necessary. Therefore, at the outset, when it is notedthat brother of appellant died due to firearm wound suffered byhim and both the FIR No. 406 of 2020 and FIR No. 407 of 2020referred to the indiscriminate use of firearm in the clash, therelease of the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020 at this juncturewas not justified, more particularly in a circumstance where theSingle Judge has not recorded his satisfaction with regard to thespecific details of the case and the reason for which each of theaccused was entitled to be enlarged on bail. At this stage, inany event the role of each member in either group is not clear.[Para 15][639-C-H; 640-A-B]

3. This Court is unable to appreciate the grant ofanticipatory bail, for more than one reason. Firstly, the delay asalleged in filing the complaint would not be material at this stagesince the ultimate reference is to the very same incident dated08.05.2020. The allegation in the complaint dated 12.05.2020 isnot relating to any other subsequent incident so as to deem it asa complaint filed as being in the nature of counter blast. Further,the very complaint registered at the behest of the appellant inFIR No.406 of 2020 would indicate that in his complaint, he hasinter alia stated that two persons of the rival group caught hold ofhis brother and thereby snatched his licensed pistol. The saidstatement in his own complaint would indicate that the groupincluding the complainant in FIR No. 406 of 2020 who are the AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aaccused in FIR No. 407 of 2020 and are seeking for grant ofanticipatory bail were also armed with firearm when they had goneto the said spot where the incident occurred. If that be theposition, it is too premature at this stage to arrive at anyconclusion as to which group was the aggressor and the mannerin which the firing had erupted and also the weapons that wereBused. These are all matters to be looked into during theinvestigation of the pending complaint and for the purpose offraming charges and the consequent trial. In addition, though theinjuries suffered by one person is contended to be a simple injury,the counter statement filed on behalf of the respondents, moreCparticularly the State of Uttar Pradesh would indicate that one ofthe reasons given for incompletion of the investigation is thatthe said injured is still undergoing treatment which makes itobvious that he has suffered more than the simple injuries referredto by the counsel. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view,the allegations are of serious nature which would require aDdetailed investigation and recovery of weapons in the course ofinvestigation which is yet to be completed. In that view, it is nota fit case where the appellants in the second set of appeal needto be protected by grant of anticipatory bail. [Para 17][640-F-H;641-A-D]

E4. In the above background, in both the set of cases thecomposite consideration would be required in the further processof investigation, framing charges and trial. That apart, as noticed,one among the accused has a criminal history was also a part ofone of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on F08.05.2020 and in that circumstance when the case has beenregistered under Section 302 and in the second FIR under Section307, in addition to Section 149 IPC, in both the cases, the bailgranted to the appellants in the first set of cases would not bejustified. Further, as indicated, the appellants in the second setof cases would also not be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail,Gthough it would be open to them to surrender and seek for regularbail on its own merits. [Para 18][641-D-F]

Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (2020) 2SCC 118: [2019] 14 SCR 529; Kalyan Chandra Sarkarvs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 – relied on.H

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.1551 of 2021.

B

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail ApplicationNo.1694 of 2021.

With

C

Crl. Appeal Nos.1558, 1557, 1552, 1554-1555, 1553 And 1556 of2021.

Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Advs. for theAppellant.

V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Aviral Saxsena, AmolChitravanshi, Ajay Prajapati, Sameer Kumar, Aditya Shankar Prasad,Shah Rukh Ahmad, Salil Chowdhury, Mandeep Baisala, Advs. for theRespondents.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by EF

A. S. BOPANNA, J.

1. The three appeals of the first set, all titled Laxman PrasadPandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. bearing Criminal AppealNo.1551/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3285/2021); Criminal AppealNo.1554-1555/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5605-5606/2021) andCriminal Appeal No.1553/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5539/2021)arise against the orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020 and 19.03.2021and 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court ofJudicature of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail ApplicationNo.1694 of 2021, Bail Application No.9559 of 2020, Bail ApplicationNo. 11 of 2021 and Bail Application No.3876 of 2021. The accused inthe above said cases are Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwariand Raj Kumar Maurya.

G

2. The second set of four appeals, titled Laxman Prasad Pandeyvs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. bearing Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061/ 2021); Vishnu Prasad Pandey H

Avs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021 (arising out ofSLP (Crl.) No.3226/2021; Subhash Saini and Pramod Prasad Pandeyvs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1558/2021 (arising out ofSLP (Crl.) No.6611/2021) and Ratnakar Dwivedi and Vikas ChandraMishra vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 (arisingout of SLP (Crl.) No.6569/2021) arise against the separate orders, allBdated 23.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,Lucknow in A.B. No.5003 of 2020, A.B No.276 of 2021 and A.B.No.5370 of 2020 respectively.

3. In the first set of three appeals, the complainant Laxman PrasadPandey has assailed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge ofCthe High Court enlarging the accused on bail, in case relating to FIRNo.406 of 2020. In the second set of four appeals, the appellants thereinhave assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissingthe petitions filed by them seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearingFIR No.407 of 2020. The above noted two sets of cases were tagged,Dheard together and are therefore being disposed of by this commonjudgment, since the issue in these appeals pertain to the same incidentwhich is alleged to have occurred on 08.05.2020 within the jurisdictionof the Kotwali City Police Station, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The brief facts to be noted for the purpose of disposal of theseEappeals indicate that Laxman Prasad Pandey had reported with acomplaint to the jurisdictional Police on 09.05.2020 at 16:30 hours aboutthe incident. The same was registered in FIR No.406 of 2020. In thesaid complaint, he had alleged that he along with his brother Ram PrasadPandey, Subhash Saini, Surendra Tiwari and others went to the plotsituated in Marut Nagar where Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari @ VivekFand others named in the complaint along with certain other unknownpersons were present. Complainant went there to seek return of themoney he had given earlier to Sarvesh Tiwari. It is alleged that SarveshTiwari and others were armed with repeater, pistol and rifle. When thecomplainant reached there, he and his associates were asked to sit onGthe chairs. The complainant at that point asked for return of his money.At that stage Aditya Singh @ Major and the other persons named in thecomplaint exhorted to attack the complainant and his associates byshouting “Mar Dalo Salo Ko”. The said Aditya Singh and Monu arealleged to have caught hold of the appellants’ brother and snatched hislicensed pistol, while Sarvesh Tiwari, Anand Tiwari, Anjani Shukla andH

others who were armed with weapons started firing on the complainantand his brother. They ran helter-skelter and in the melee, appellant’sbrother - Ram Prasad Pandey fell down since he suffered firearm injuries.His brother was taken to the District Hospital, from where he wasreferred to Allahabad Swaroop Rani Hospital when he breathed his lastduring the treatment. In that light, the FIR was registered against thepersons named therein which include the private respondents in the firstset of the three appeals, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and120B IPC and Section 27/30 of Arms Act. It is in the said proceedings,the accused Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj KumarMaurya had filed petitions under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking grant ofbail. The same being allowed by the High Court, the complainant isbefore this Court seeking that the order be set aside.

5. In respect of the same incident alleged to have occurred on08.05.2020 yet another FIR bearing No.407 of 2020 was registered basedon the complaint lodged by Sarvesh Tiwari on 12.05.2020 at 16:14 hours.In the said complaint, it was stated by Sarvesh Tiwari that he is a residentof Sagra Village and he works as a property dealer in Ranjitpur Chilbila.He has alleged that on 08.05.2020, the brokers of the land belonging toRam Prasad Pandey, Laxman Prasad Pandey, Vishnu Pandey beingaccompanied with the others named in the complaint and being armedwith illegal weapons came there. Due to previous enmity, with theintention to kill them started indiscrete firing on the complainant and theothers present. His cousin brother Anand Tiwari and also Rahul Tiwari@ Monu and Anjani Shukla sustained gunshot injuries and fell to theground. The attacking party had presumed them to be dead and wentaway abusing them. In that view, the complainant sought action againstthem. The said crime No.407 of 2020 was registered under Section 147,148, 149, 307 IPC. In the second set of appeals relating to the said FIRNo.407 of 2020, the persons accused therein namely Laxman PrasadPandey, Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Subhash Saini, Pramod Pandey, RatnakarDwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra filed petitions before the High Courtunder Section 438 of IPC seeking grant of anticipatory bail which cameto be rejected. The rejection of the anticipatory bail by the learned SingleJudge is assailed in the second set of appeals.

6. As already indicated, since all the above noted appeals ariseout of the same alleged incident dated 08.05.2020 and the nature ofconsideration would be the same in all these cases, they are consideredtogether.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counselalong with Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the State of U.P. and Mr. SameerKumar, learned counsel for the private respondents in all these appeals.

8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has taken usBthrough the contents of FIR No.406 of 2020 and in that light has pointedout to the post-mortem report dated 09.05.2020 wherein the contentsreveal that Ram Prasad Pandey, the deceased brother of the complainanthad suffered external injuries such as, wound caused by firearm. In thatlight, it is contended that when the case registered against the accused isfor the grave offences which include the offence under Section 302 IPCCand the provisions of the Arms Act, the learned Single Judge ought tohave appropriately recorded his satisfaction before exercising thediscretion to enlarge on bail. It is contended that in the instant case, thelearned Single Judge except referring to the rival contention has notanalysed the same for recording his satisfaction. Observations of aDgeneral nature is made and ordered to enlarge the accused on bail. It iscontended that such consideration is contrary to the position of lawenunciated by this Court in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @Polia & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118. The learned counsel had also madedetailed reference to the other material on record to contend that theorder to enlarge the accused on bail, in FIR No.406 of 2020 is liable toEbe set aside.

9. Insofar as the appeals filed by the accused in case relating toFIR No.407 of 2020 Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearingfor the appellants therein contended that the said complaint is filed onlyas a counter blast. It was an afterthought and filed as late as onF12.05.2020. Though in the FIR the alleged offence is registered underSection 307 IPC as well, the medical certificate relating to Anand Tiwariwho is stated to be injured as per the complainant, has suffered onlysimple injuries caused due to hard and blunt object. In such event, whenthe persons named in the said FIR are available to cooperate in theGinvestigation, the petition filed by them seeking anticipatory bail ought tohave been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge andanticipatory bail ought to have been granted. It is further contended thatthe receipts dated 28.05.2018 and 29.06.2018 would indicate that SarveshTiwari had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) fromLaxman Prasad Pandey which was to be returned. He and his brotherH

were attacked when they legitimately sought return of the money. Inthat circumstance, Sarvesh Tiwari and others named in FIR No.406 of2020 are the aggressors. In such event, there is no reason to deny theappellants the benefit of anticipatory bail sought by the appellants.

10. The learned counsel for the private respondents with referenceto the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf sought to contend that thelearned Single Judge having taken note of the contentions relating to thecase in FIR No.406 of 2020 and also the period of incarceration hadgranted bail to the accused which is justified. It is contended that whenthe learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion, the same wouldnot call for interference.

11. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the State, withreference to the factual aspects has contended that though two FIRsare registered, as evident, the matter relates to the same incident dated08.05.2020 where there has been a group clash by using firearms whichresulted in indiscriminate firing. As such, in either case the accused inboth the set of cases are not entitled to be released on bail. The learnedcounsel has also referred to the criminal history of the persons involved.It is contended that the investigation in the case relating to FIR No.407of 2020 could not be concluded as the accused did not cooperate afterobtaining interim protection in the appeal seeking anticipatory bail. Further,the injured person is still undergoing treatment. Hence, the learned counselseeks that the bail granted to the accused in Crime No.406 of 2020 becancelled and the appeals relating to FIR No.407 of 2020 be dismissed.

12. In the above backdrop, a perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021in the proceedings relating to FIR No.406 of 2020 in Bail ApplicationNo.1694 of 2021 indicates that the learned Judge though has taken noteof details of the incident and the contention of the learned counsel forthe parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction to enlargethe accused on bail. The ultimate reason and conclusion adopted by thelearned Single Judge reads as hereunder: - “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and alsoconsidering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced bylearned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jailand without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find itto be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

The nature of consideration is similar in the order dated 17.12.2020and 26.07.2021 passed in Bail Application Nos.9559 of 2020 and 3876of 2021 relating to the other two accused in FIR No.406 of 2020.

A

13. In that background, a perusal of the decision rendered by aTwo Judge Bench of this Court in Mahipal (supra) authored by Dr.BJustice D.Y. Chandrachud reads as hereunder: -

“24. There is another reason why the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of judicialdiscipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record thereasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of itsCdiscretionary power. In the present case, the assessment by theHigh Court is essentially contained in a single para which reads:

“4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel forthe petitioner and taking into account the facts andcircumstances of the case and without expressing opinion onthe merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper toenlarge the petitioner on bail.”

D

25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on thefacts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purposeof a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of openEjustice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factorswhich have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection orthe grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice ispremised 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 thisFcommitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both libertyof individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as theinterests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those whocommit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they havearrived at a conclusion.”

G

14. While arriving at such conclusion in the case of Mahipal(supra), the Hon’ble Bench of this Court had inter alia referred to anearlier decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. RajeshRanjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 wherein another Bench of this Court, authoredby Justice Santosh Hegde had held as hereunder: -H

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very wellsettled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in ajudicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at thestage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence andelaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not beundertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasonsfor prima facie concluding why bail was being grantedparticularly where the accused is charged of having committeda serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons wouldsuffer from non-application of mind.”

15. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is noticedthat the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge extracted suprais almost verbatim similar to the portion which is extracted anddisapproved by this Court in Mahipal’s case noted supra. It is noticedthat with such sweeping observation made by the learned Single Judge,Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar Mauryathe accused in FIR No.406 of 2020 have been ordered to be enlarged onbail though the charges thereunder are grave, which include Section 302IPC and Section 27/30 of the Arms Act. The allegation is of indiscriminatefiring which has also resulted in the death of Ram Prasad Pandey, thebrother of the complainant. It is no doubt true, that the investigation hasbeen carried out in the said case and the chargesheet is stated to havebeen filed. Further, the fact that the said accused persons had spent 10,7 and 4 months respectively in custody seems to have weighed with theCourt which could not have been a mitigating factor when charges ofsuch serious nature are to be tried. The details furnished by the learnedsenior counsel for the State would indicate that seven other cases areregistered against one of the accused named Raj Kumar Maurya who isalso alleged to be a part of the group of the accused in the instant case.In such circumstance, when the said persons are also stated to havebeen attacked by the rival group as alleged in the counter complaint ofSarvesh Tiwari in FIR No.407 of 2020 and the investigation is not yetcomplete in the said proceedings, it would not be appropriate for the saidpersons who were part of one group which had clashed against theother to be in a position to alter the nature of consideration when ultimatelya composite investigation to complete the process in FIR No.407 of2020 would also be necessary. Therefore, at the outset, when it is notedthat Ram Prasad Pandey died due to firearm wound suffered by himand both the FIR No.406 of 2020 and FIR No.407 of 2020 referred to AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe indiscriminate use of firearm in the clash, the release of the accusedin FIR No.406 of 2020 at this juncture was not justified, more particularlyin a circumstance where the learned Single Judge has not recorded hissatisfaction with regard to the specific details of the case and the reasonfor which each of the accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail. Atthis stage, in any event the role of each member in either group is notBclear.

16. Similarly, the complaint lodged in FIR No.407 of 2020 disclosesthat the allegation made against the appellants in the second set of appealis also of grave nature; to the effect that the accused persons werearmed with illegal weapons and due to the previous enmity, they hadCcome there with intention to kill the complainant and his associates. Inthat regard, it is alleged that the accused had indulged in indiscriminatefiring on the complainant, his cousin brother Anand Tiwari, Rahul Tiwari,Anjani Shukla and that they fell down on sustaining gunshot injury. Asagainst the said allegations, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counselDfor the said appellants while seeking to justify the prayer for grant ofanticipatory bail has made strenuous attempt to contend that the saidcomplaint is belated and lodged as a counter blast though there is notruth in the allegations. In that regard, in order to contend that AnandTiwari had not suffered gunshot injury, has referred to the medicalcertificate wherein the opinion expressed is that the injuries which wereEshown to be lacerated wound are simple in nature caused due to hardand blunt object.

17. Though such contention is put forth, we are unable to appreciatethe same in favour of the said appellants to consider grant of anticipatorybail, for more than one reason. Firstly, the delay as alleged in filing theFcomplaint would not be material at this stage since the ultimate referenceis to the very same incident dated 08.05.2020. The allegation in thecomplaint dated 12.05.2020 is not relating to any other subsequent incidentso as to deem it as a complaint filed as being in the nature of counterblast. Further, the very complaint registered at the behest of LaxmanGPrasad Pandey in FIR No.406 of 2020 would indicate that in his complaint,he has inter alia stated thus - “in the meanwhile, Aditya Singh andMonu caught hold of the appellants’ brother and thereby snatchedhis licensed pistol”. The said statement in his own complaint wouldindicate that the group including the complainant in FIR No.406 of 2020who are the accused in FIR No.407 of 2020 and are seeking for grant ofH

anticipatory bail were also armed with firearm when they had gone tothe said spot where the incident occurred. If that be the position, it is toopremature at this stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which groupwas the aggressor and the manner in which the firing had erupted andalso the weapons that were used. These are all matters to be looked intoduring the investigation of the pending complaint and for the purpose offraming charges and the consequent trial. In addition, though the injuriessuffered by Anand Tiwari is contended to be a simple injury, the counterstatement filed on behalf of the respondents, more particularly the Stateof Uttar Pradesh would indicate that one of the reasons given forincompletion of the investigation is that the injured is still undergoingtreatment which makes it obvious that he has suffered more than thesimple injuries referred to by the learned counsel. Therefore, if all theseaspects are kept in view, the allegations are of serious nature whichwould require a detailed investigation and recovery of weapons in thecourse of investigation which is yet to be completed. In that view, it isnot a fit case where the appellants in the second set of appeal need to beprotected by grant of anticipatory bail.

A

B

C

D

18. In the above background, in both the set of cases the compositeconsideration would be required in the further process of investigation,framing charges and trial. That apart, as noticed, one among the accusednamely Raj Kumar Maurya who has a criminal history was also a partof one of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on 08.05.2020and in that circumstance when the case has been registered under Section302 and in the second FIR under Section 307, in addition to Section 149IPC, in both the cases, the bail granted to the appellants in the first set ofcases would not be justified. Further, as indicated supra, the appellantsin the second set of cases would also not be entitled to grant ofanticipatory bail, though it would be open to them to surrender and seekfor regular bail on its own merits.

E

F

19. For all the afore-stated reasons, the following order: -

(i) The orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020 and 26.07.2021passed by the learned Single Judge in Bail ApplicationsNo.1694/2021; 9559/2020 and 3876/2021 are set aside andthe bail granted by the High Court is set aside.

G

(ii) The bail bonds executed by Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul@ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar Maurya shall standcancelled and the said accused shall be taken to custody.H

642SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(iii)The Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3285/2021; Criminal Appeal No.1554-1555/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)Nos.5605-5606/2021 and Criminal Appeal No.1553/2021 @SLP (Crl.) No. 5539/2021) are allowed accordingly.

(iv) The Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6061/B2021; Criminal Appeal No.1552/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)No.3226/2021; Criminal Appeal No. 1558/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)No.6611/2021) and Criminal Appeal No.1557/2021 @ SLP(Crl.) No.6569/2021 seeking for an order of anticipatorybail are dismissed.

C(v)The interim orders passed during the pendency of theseproceedings shall stand dissolved.

(vi) It will be open for the appellants in Criminal AppealNos.1556/2021, 1552/2021, 1558/2021 and 1557/2021 tosurrender and seek for regular bail which shall be consideredDon its own merits, in accordance with law.

(vii) This order shall not be an impediment for the trial court orHigh Court to consider applications of any of the accusedat the appropriate stage. All contentions in that regard arekept open. The observation herein shall not be consideredEas an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

(viii) Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

F

G

H