The division judge bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari of the Supreme court of India in the case of Aminuddin Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr held that even if the High Court proceeded to consider the fact that the co-accused person had been granted bail, at least this much was required that the relevant facts of the case were indicated as also the reasons as to how the case was treated to be identical.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant has lodged the FIR for offenses under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the 7 persons who killed the appellant’s son with a knife and sharp weapons. Further, the bail application was moved by respondent no. -2 before the session court was dismissed. Then, the first bail application was introduced before the high court and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 came up with a second bail application before the high court and the high court granted bail to the accused on the ground that the co-accused had been granted bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the very basis of granting bail to respondent no. 2 having been knocked out, the impugned order cannot sustain itself and deserves to be set aside. It was further argued that the High Court completely disregarded the fact that the son of the appellant was murdered in broad daylight in a brutal and gruesome manner by seven individuals, who also caused up to eight severe injuries to his vital organs. The learned counsel has argued that in this situation, the order granting bail even before the trial started suffers from egregious illegality and improperness and should be overturned.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state duly supported the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the impugned order does not call for interference merely because this Court has set aside the order granting bail to the co-accused Fahim. It was further submitted that a strong case for granting bail has been made out and the high court has committed no error in granting bail. Further, in supporting the above-stated contentions the learned counsel has put forward that Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019; he had no criminal history or other adverse records; no specific role had been assigned to him in relation to the incident in question, and the prosecution's version of events appears to be demonstrably false for the scientific reason that seven defendants could not have simultaneously harmed the deceased's body with seven knives.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also filed the rejoinder submission and submitted that the two witnesses are yet to be examined and looking to the nature of the accusations and the order passed by this Court in relation to the co-accused person, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble top court stated that the High Court on behalf of the present respondent No. 2, while seeking bail, had been that the co-accused persons had been granted bail and he was entitled to the same relief on the ground of parity because his case was standing on identical footing. The other submissions had been that the respondent No. 2 was in custody since 02.09.2019; that he had no criminal history; and that trial was likely to take time. The High Court did not consider any other aspect of the matter at all and proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that the so-called identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The fact that the order granting bail to the co-accused Fahim met with its strong disapproval by this Court remains rather indisputable.
Further, the reliance was placed upon the judgment titled Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar in which it was stated that
“Merely recording “having perused the record” and on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.”
The hon’ble apex court stated that the position aforesaid equally applies to the present case too. Moreover, when the bail granted to the co-accused person has been disapproved by this Court and such grant of bail to the co-accused had been the only reason for which the bail was granted to respondent No. 2, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, even if the High Court proceeded to consider the fact that the co-accused person had been granted bail, at least this much was required that the relevant facts of the case were indicated as also the reasons as to how the case of respondent No. 2 was treated to be identical.
CASE NAME- Aminuddin Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …….. OF 2022
DATED- 23.09.22
CORUM- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :