Supreme Court of India
MAUJI RAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 29 July 2019
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 321
MAUJI RAM
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1150 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 439 – Bail – In a murder case – Denied by Sessions Court– Allowed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court by complainant– Held: Though it may not be necessary to give categorical findingwhile granting or rejecting bail, yet it must appear from the orderthat court has applied its mind – In the present case High Courtcommitted jurisdictional error as it did not assign any reason forgranting the bail – In the facts of the case, it is not a fit case forgrant of bail – Bail.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though it may not be necessary to givecategorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail for want offull evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the defenceat that stage, yet it must appear from a perusal of the order thatthe Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light ofthe material filed by the prosecution at the time of considerationof bail application. It is unfortunate that neither the law laid downby this Court, nor the material filed by the prosecution was takennote of by the High Court while considering the grant of bail tothe respondents. [Para 13] [325-C-D]
2. The High Court committed jurisdictional error inpassing the impugned order because the High Court did notassign any reason whatsoever as to on what grounds, even thoughof a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bailto the respondents. [Para 12] [325-B]
3. Having perused the FIR and keeping in view theantecedents of the accused persons which are brought on recordby the State in their counter affidavit and further keeping in view
321
A
B
CD
EF
G
H
Athe manner in which the offence under Section 302 IPC wascommitted, the Court is prima facie of the view that this is not afit case for grant of bail to the accused persons. These factorswere relevant while considering the bail application and, they were not taken into consideration. [Para 15] [325-F-G]
4. Taking into consideration the entire scenario of the case,this was not a fit case for grant of bail to the respondents(accusedpersons) by the High Court. The Sessions Judge, was,therefore, right in rejecting the bail applications filed by therespondents. [Para 17] [326-B]
B
Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 7SCC 507 ;LokeshSingh v. State of U.P. & Anr.(2008) 16 SCC 753 :[2008] 14 SCR 980 ;Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.(2018) 3 SCC22 : [2018] 1 SCR 882 – relied on.
C
Case Law Reference
D
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo.1150 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1859 ofF2019
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1151-1152, 1153-1156 of 2019.
Rishi Malhotra, Adv. for the Appellant.G
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Pranshu Kaushal,Mr.Sandeep Singh, Adnan Siddiqui, Suhit K. Sharma, Sarvesh SinghBaghel, Puny Garg, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
20
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
5
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17.01.2019in CRMBA No.1859 of 2019, dated 24.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3574/2019, dated 29.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3547/2019, dated 06.02.2019 inCRMBA No.4627/2019, dated 18.02.2019 in CRMBA No.6450/2019,dated 12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated 26.03.2019in CRMBA No.11793 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of theseappeals, which involve a short point.
4. Respondent No.2 in all the appeals, namely, Subhash, Kartar,Sohit, Amarjeet, Soran Bhati, Lilu@Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total-7), herein after collectively referred to as “respondents” are facing trialfor commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149,302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) which arise out of Crime No. 608/2018 registered with P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP)pending in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in BANo. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-UPGB01-003006/2018, B.A. No.6295/2018-UPGB01-00 3536/2018, B.A.No.6738/2018-UPGB01-00 4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01-00 4694/2018. These respondents were apprehended for committing themurder of one - Sumit Kumar - son of the appellant-Complainant.
5. The respondents (accused persons) after they wereapprehended applied for grant of bail before the Sessions Court in theaforementioned trial. The Sessions Judge by order dated 20.11.2018 inBA No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-UPGB01-003006/2018, order dated 22.11.2018 in B.A. No.6295/2018-UPGB01-00 3536/2018 and order dated 08.01.2019 in B.A. No.6738/2018-UPGB01-00 4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01-00 4694/2018 rejected the bail applications of the respondents.
6. The respondents felt aggrieved by the rejection of their bailapplications and filed the bail applications under Section 439 of the B
C
D
E
F
G
ACriminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)in the High Court of Allahabad. By impugned orders, the High Courtallowed the bail applications and accordingly directed release of therespondents on bail on their furnishing security and bail bonds to thesatisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
7. It is against these orders of the High Court, the father of thedeceased has felt aggrieved and filed these appeals questioning thelegality and correctness of the impugned orders.
B
8. So far as the State is concerned, they have supported theappellant by filing counter affidavit. The respondents (accused persons)Care also served and duly represented.
9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to therespondents (accused).
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
D
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals andwhile setting aside the impugned orders dismiss the bail applications filedby the respondents(accused persons).The impugned order reads asunder:
E
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andwithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Ifind it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Subhash involved in Case Crime No.608of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 427, 307,F302, 120B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar bereleased on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with twosureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of theCourt concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
G
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecutionwitnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trialcourt unless personal appearance is exempted by the courtconcerned.
H
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, thetrial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of theapplicant.”
12. In our considered opinion, the High Court committedjurisdictional error in passing the impugned order because while passingthe impugned order, the High Court did not assign any reason whatsoeveras to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, itconsidered just and proper to grant bail to the respondents.
13. Time and again this Court has emphasized the need for assigningthe reasons while granting bail (see Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State ofU.P. & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. &Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 753 & Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,(2018) 3 SCC 22). Though it may not be necessary to give categoricalfinding while granting or rejecting the bail for want of full evidenceadduced by the prosecution as also by the defence at that stage yet itmust appear from a perusal of the order that the Court has applied itsmind to the relevant facts in the light of the material filed by theprosecution at the time of consideration of bail application. It is unfortunatethat neither the law laid down by this Court, nor the material filed by theprosecution was taken note of by the High Court while considering thegrant of bail to the respondents.
14. We have perused the petitions with annexures, the counteraffidavit with annexures filed by the State and also by the accusedpersons.
15. Having perused the FIR and keeping in view the antecedentsof the accused persons which are brought on record by the State in theircounter affidavit and further keeping in view the manner in which theoffence under Section 302 IPC was committed, we are prima facie ofthe view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused persons(respondent No.2 herein in all the appeals). These factors were relevantwhile considering the bail application and, in our view, they were nottaken into consideration.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents (accused persons)vehemently opposed the appeals and urged that having regard to thetotality of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of thecase and the fact that the respondents (accused persons) have not AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aviolated any condition of grant of bail till date, this Court should notinterfere in the impugned orders granting bail to the respondents.
17. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, taking intoconsideration the entire scenario of the case, this was not a fit case forgrant of bail to the respondents(accused persons) by the High Court.BThe Sessions Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in rejecting the bail applications filed by the respondents.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeedand are hereby allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The bailapplications filed by the respondents (accused persons) are dismissed.
C
19. As a consequence thereof, the respondents(accused persons)in all the appeals are directed to surrender in the concerned SessionsCourt for being taken into custody as under trial.
20. We, however, make it clear that the Sessions Judge will decidethe trial strictly in accordance with law on its merits expeditiously withoutDbeing influenced by any observation made in this order.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
H