SUDHA SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 23 April 2021

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This is a criminal appeal filed against the order of the AllahabadFHigh Court granting bail to the accused who has been arrested withrespect to the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangsterand Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased victim namely [REDACTED]Singh who has been allegedly murdered by the accused, who isGRespondent No. 2 herein, in conspiracy with others. A First InformationReport bearing Case Crime Number 200 of 2015, P.S.-Sodhari, Distt.-Azamgarh, was registered in that regard and a charge sheet for offencesunder Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused. Theaccused is alleged to be a contract killer and a sharpshooter. In fact, H

previously, the accused has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for seriousoffences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy.

4. According to the prosecution, the accused along with otherpersons operate an organized crime gang in Azamgarh that allegedlycommits offences punishable under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IndianPenal Code. The very purpose of the gang is to make physical andfinancial gains by committing innumerable crimes of serious nature. It isalso stated that this gang instills extreme fear and terror in the areawhere it operates thereby precluding persons from coming forward andlodging police complaints against its activities, or for that matter deposingin cases pertaining thereof.

5. By the order impugned in this criminal appeal, the AllahabadHigh Court granted bail to the accused herein on very liberal terms, suchas the execution of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the jailAuthorities and the furnishing of sureties within a month of his release.The High court has simply ignored the antecedents of the accused andthe potential to repeat his acts by organising his criminal activities.

6. It is stated by the appellant, who is the wife of the deceasedvictim that the conduct of the accused during the trial of the case inCase No. 511 of 2016 has been one of non cooperation, by not crossexamining the witnesses first, then praying for their recall and thenthreatening witnesses through his henchmen. In fact, the conduct of theaccused impelled the Sessions court to direct the police to provide securityin the court during the trial and provide security to the witnesses.

7. It is also contended by the appellant that the grant of bail in aroutine manner to gangsters, has had an adverse effect in the past, uponthe law and order situation. The appellant cites the example of a personwho was prosecuted in connection with 64 criminal cases which includedcases of murders, offences of dacoity, criminal intimidation, extortionand offences under the UP-Gangster Act, etc., but who was releasedon bail. Ultimately, when a police team went to apprehend him in a case,allegedly 8 policemen were killed and many grievously injured. Therefore,the appellant contends that courts must be extremely careful in releasingof history sheeters who have been charged with serious offences likemurder, rape or other kinds of bodily harms several times.

8. We find in this case that the high court has overlooked severalaspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature,it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkeredvision by just taking into account only the parties before them and theincident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact thatrelease of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to beexamined and the innocent members of the family of the victim whoBmight be the next victims.

9. This Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P.[1] held that whena stand was taken that the accused was a history sheeter, it wasimperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and notcapriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bailCon the ground of parity.

10. In Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh[2], this Court observedthat when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offenceswere obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, thecourts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. ItDemphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminalantecedents of the accused.

11. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee andAnother[3], it was held that this Court ordinarily would not interfere witha High Court’s order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. Nonetheless,Eit was equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretionjudiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by acatena of decisions of this Court. The factors laid down in the judgmentwere:

(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground toFbelieve that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail; G

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing ofthe accused; 1 (2014) 16 SCC 508

2 (2012) 9 SCC 446

H3 (2010) 14 SCC 496

(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;

and

(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

12. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a personcharged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise thepotential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accusedis released on bail.

13. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of theAllahabad High Court granting bail to the accused.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed .

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H