Supreme Court of India
BOHATTI DEVI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 30 September 2022
BOHATTI DEVI
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 120B – Bail – Respondent no.2-accused granted bail by High Court – On appeal, held : No cogentreasons have been given by the High Court while releasing therespondent no.2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that tooin a very serious offence u/ss.302 and 120B – Material and/orrelevant aspects have been ignored by the High Court while releasingthe respondent no.2 on bail – Further, while considering the paritywith co-accused, it did not consider the role attributed to the saidco-accused and the allegations against respondent no.2 – Impugnedjudgment set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1695 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2022 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095of 2022.
Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Deepali, Tarun Gupta, Advs.for the Appellant.
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv., SarveshSingh Baghel, B. N. Dubey, Vishal Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Dubey,Abhishek Chauhan, H. B. Dubey, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Amit P. Shahi,Ashish Tanwar, R. Khanna, Amit Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
283
A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095 of 2022 by whichBthe High Court has released the respondent No. 2 accused on bail inconnection with the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 302 and 120BIPC, the original complainant (now the State) has preferred the presentappeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No.C2 is facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, it can be seen thatthe High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity ofthe offence alleged against the respondent No. 2. Even the High CourtDhas not considered the relevant material forming the charge sheet. Nocogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing therespondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in avery serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.
2.1 The High Court has also not considered the fact that earlierEthe respondent No. 2 – accused initiated the proceedings before theHigh Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him by filing anapplication under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed bythe High Court. The High Court has also not considered that the specialleave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court rejectingthe application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also got dismissed by this Court.FThe High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailablewarrant was issued against respondent No. 2 – accused and thereafter,he was arrested in the year 2021. All the aforesaid aspects, which arevery material and/or relevant while considering the prayer for bail havebeen ignored by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 onbail.G
2.2 From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that theHigh Court has considered the enlargement on bail to the co-accusedVicky and Sarvesh @ Mangal. However, the High Court while consideringthe parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.H
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondentNo. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashedand set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondentNo. 2 - accused on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 1069 of 2014for the offence under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Baraut, DistrictBaghpat is hereby quashed and set aside.
Now, the respondent No.2 to surrender before the concerned JailAuthority / Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which,non-bailable warrant be issued against him. However, it is observed thatthe learned Trial Court to conduct the trial in accordance with law andon merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it and without inany way being influenced by the present order as any observations madein the present order are while considering the bail application.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H