The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna while setting aside the order of a High Court held that the high court erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail.
Facts
The appellant herein – informant – younger brother of the deceased lodged FIR against all the accused named in the FIR for the offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother, who succumbed to the bullet injury. As per the case of the prosecution, on fateful date of occurrence accused (respondent No.2 herein) and other accused named in FIR having armed with lethal weapons came to the Bamboo Clumps of the informant and they started cutting the bamboos. So, his brother went to forbade them. On this accused ordered to kill his brother who started fleeing away but he was chased and surrounded by all the accused persons. After that the co-accused Manish Kumar fired upon him from his rifle due to which he got injured and fell and when the informant went to save him, the co-accused namely fired twice upon the informant due to which the informant also got injured to some extent. After that all the accused persons brutally assaulted the informant by means of Lathi, Danda. When co-villagers started assembling there then all the accused persons fled away. Later, both the injured persons were brought to the Sadar Hajipur and thereafter they were referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. During treatment, his brother succumbed to the bullet injury. Later, Section 302 IPC was added.
Procedural History
All the accused persons were arrested including the respondent No.2. The bail application filed by the respondent No.2 came to be rejected by the Sessions Court by giving cogent reasons and by observing that he and other accused persons named in the FIR formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter killed informant’s brother. That thereafter the respondent No.2 approached the High Court by way of present application under Section 439 CrPC and by the impugned judgment and order without assigning any cogent reasons and without even considering the gravity and nature of the offence committed, it allowed the bail. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the original informant - younger brother of the deceased, who himself is an injured eyewitness has preferred the present appeal.
Contentions Made
Appellant: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the respondent No.2 accused on bail in a case where one person is killed. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the aforesaid can hardly be said to be sufficient reasons assigned while releasing the accused on bail. Reliance was placed on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Ors, Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar, Bhoopendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr and Anil Kumar Yadav vs State (NCT of Delhi). Therefore, the High Court ought not to have released the respondent No.2 on bail in such a serious case for the offence u/s 302 IPC.
Respondent: Having accepted the submissions on behalf of the accused and after considering all the facts of the case, the High Court has released the accused – respondent No.2 on bail and the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.2 is a 70-year-old senior citizen suffering from various ailments and has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The alleged involvement in two previous cases has not been concealed from the Hon’ble Court while making application or submission of arguments and has also been discussed by the High Court in the impugned order. It was prayed not to cancel the bail and/or interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it can be seen that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail. Neither the High Court has considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail. The High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant considerations for grant of bail. It has also not at all considered the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 - accused. Though it was pointed out on behalf of the informant that the accused is involved in two cases and that the appellant (informant) was restrained from proceeding further in earlier cases pending against the accused, the High Court has simply brushed aside the same and has not considered the same at all. It appears that the High Court has passed the order mechanically and in a most perfunctory manner.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail was set aside. On quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail, now the respondent No.2 accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority / before the concerned Court.
Case Name: Sunil Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Anr.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Decided on:25th January 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
