PURAN MAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. on 10 March 2022

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a casefor offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short‘IPC’). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by theFTrial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High Court has allowedthe bail application of the respondent no. 2. The complainant has filedthis appeal by way of special leave petition questioning legality of theorder granting bail to the respondent no.2.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who wasGthe brother of the complainant/appellant, had received fatal injuries anddied between the night intervening 16/17.06.2020.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking,in substance, cancellation of the order granting bail is that there was along standing rivalry between the deceased and the respondent no. 2Hand on 16.06.2020 evening itself there was a scuffle between the two in

which the deceased had received injuries and he had lodged a complaintin his own handwriting with the police station at 08.00 p.m. (which wasregistered subsequently on the next date). After lodging FIR, the deceasedhad gone to the hospital for treatment. It is contended that the respondentno. 2 also reached the hospital and according to the appellant, the callrecords would show that he called his son to the hospital who then attackedthe deceased with knife causing grievous injuries on account of whichthe deceased expired. It is further submitted that in this background thebail applications of the respondent no. 2 were twice rejected by the TrialCourt and the High Court has granted the bail without considering theseaspects and without assigning any cogent reasons. It is also submittedthat after being released on bail there are allegations against the respondentno. 2 threatening the family members of the deceased. It is also contendedthat the charges have now been framed against the respondent no. 2under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.

5. Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the State of Haryana has supported the case of the appellantand submitted that when twice the bail has been rejected by the TrialCourt with detailed reasons, the High Court ought to have given properreasons for granting bail and could not have passed the order withoutassigning such reasons.

6. Per contra, Mr. Shishir Mathur, learned counsel for respondentno. 2 has submitted that the High Court has considered the discrepancieswith regard to the role assigned to the respondent no. 2 in the FIR andthe statement of the complainant and has also considered the CCTVfootage which was filed before the High Court and then granted bail.

7. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for theappellant, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing for the State/respondent no.1, as well as Mr. Shishir Mathur,learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (accused) and perused therecord.

8. What we notice from the impugned order is that the High Court,while granting bail, has only made the following observations and passedthe order for grant of bail:

“As per the FIR, the petitioner had allegedly caught hold of theleft hand of the deceased and Manish and Piyush @ Passu hadinflicted knife blows upon the deceased, whereas the complainant A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

862SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Agot his supplementary statement recorded by improving his versionthat the petitioner and Deepak had come running and asked theboy to kill him (deceased) and ensure that he might not survive.The petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2020. Trial of thecase would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purposewould be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.”B

9. It is settled law that when the Trial Court has dismissed the bailapplication (and in the present case it has been dismissed twice), what isexpected from the High Court, while taking a view different from that ofthe Trial Court, some cogent and valid reasons ought to have been givenfor grant of bail. The nature of offence in the present case is very grave.CThe fact that the son of the respondent no. 2 had stabbed the deceasedin the presence of the respondent no. 2 is prima facie clear from thematerials available before this Court and the CCTV footage which wasfiled before the High Court. The details of the phone calls made betweenthe respondent no. 2 (accused no. 2) and his son (accused no. 1) areDalso on record. All these factors ought to have been considered by theHigh Court while passing the impugned order, which has not been donein the present case.

10. Though an order for grant or rejection of plea for bail is adiscretionary remedy, several decisions of this Court have been citedEbefore us, which discusses the principles guiding this field of law. InNiranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors.[(1980) 2 SCC 559], it has been held that at that stage, Court should besatisfied of a prima-facie case and detailed examination of evidence isnot necessary for considering this question. In Ram Govind Upadhyayvs. Sudarshan Singhand Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598], this Court opinedFthat once the High Court refuses bail, to consider such plea and grant ofbail subsequently must be supported by reasons.

11. In the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case ofJaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 58]and Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2022 (Sabir vs. Bhoora & Nadeem &GAnr.) decided on 15[th] February, 2022 by this very Bench, the need of abail order in serious offences to be supported by reason was emphasised.Same view was taken by a Coordinate Bench in the case of BrijmaniDevi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2021) SCC Online SC 1280].This question had been dealt with in the case of X vs. State of TelanganaHand Anr. [(2018) 16 SCC 511].

12. In the present case, however, there were earlier two rejectionorders by the Court of Session but the High Court had granted bail underSection 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the first time itsjurisdiction was invoked under that provision. In the case of KalyanChandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.[(2004) 7 SCC 528], gravity of the offence alleged has been held to bean important factor for considering the question of grant of bail.

13. Judgments in the cases of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State ofUttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2020) 11 SCC 648] and State of U.P.through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] deal withthe question of considering orders of the High Court granting bail by thisCourt at the appellate stage. In Prabhakar Tewari (in which one of us,Aniruddha Bose J. was a party), bail order by the High Court wassustained as it was found by this Court that there was no error in exerciseof discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the accused persons.The offence, though, was grave and serious and involved Section 302 ofIPC. In the case of Amarmani Tripathi (supra), post-release conductof the accused was considered. A Coordinate Bench of this Court foundthat the High Court had practically failed to take into considerationvoluminous materials collected by the investigating agency. In thatperspective, the order granting bail to the accused was set aside.

14. In the facts of the present case we have taken into considerationthe seriousness of the offence as well as the conduct of the respondentno. 2. We also find that the respondent no. 2 in a serious case like thisremained in prison only for about four months before bail was granted.There are allegations that the family of the deceased had been threatenedon behalf of the respondent no. 2. We have taken into consideration theratio of different authorities cited by the learned counsel for the partiesand are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court grantingbail to the respondent no. 2 is liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we allow this appealand quash the order of the High Court dated 17.11.2020.

16. No orders as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H