Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2018 DIGILAW 2084 (SC)

Sanjay v. Shailesh

2018-12-12

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, N.V.RAMANA

body2018
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by way of Special Leave, is preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2455 of 2017 wherein the application for bail filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31.07.2015, while the appellant and his father Babu Ram (deceased) were returning home after closing their tea shop, they were intercepted by respondent no. 4 herein, namely Raju, who asked them to pay Rs. 150 for the grocery items which were purchased by the deceased earlier. Respondent no. 4 was told that the amount will be paid the next day, hearing which he got annoyed and abused the appellant and the deceased. At this stage, while the appellant and the deceased were proceeding on their way, respondent nos. 1 to 4 surrounded them. The respondents-accused then started beating and kicking the deceased, till he breath his last. After killing the deceased, the respondents-accused fled. Pursuant to this an FIR, Case Crime no. 202 of 2015, was registered by the appellant against the respondents-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Consequently, the respondents-accused were arrested. 4. On trial, the trial court vide order dated 04.05.2015 found the respondents-accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000 each. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, the respondents-accused preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, a bail application was filed by the respondents-accused which was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 11.01.2018 stating that a prima facie case for bail has been made. 6. The present appeal, by way of Special Leave, is preferred by the son of the deceased against the aforementioned order of Allahabad High Court. 7. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court is perverse and no reason whatsoever has been given by the High Court in granting bail to respondent nos. 1 to 4 who have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent no. 5, also supported the arguments of the appellant. 8. 1 to 4 who have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent no. 5, also supported the arguments of the appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of respondents-accused prayed for noninterference in the order of Allahabad High Court and submitted that bail should be the rule and incarceration the exception. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, and considering the material placed before us, we are of the opinion that there has been no application of mind by the High Court while granting bail to the respondents-accused. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the respondents-accused have earlier tried to interfere with the trial by threatening the family of the deceased to settle the matter. 10. The State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent no. 5, has also filed a counter affidavit wherein it is mentioned that there is an apprehension of breach of peace or possibility of commission of untoward incident in view of the release of the respondents-accused on bail. 11. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should not have granted bail to the respondents-accused during the pendency of the criminal appeal. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the appeal because it is pending before the High Court, and our observations, if any, may prejudice the rights of the respondents-accused. 12. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused is set aside and their bail bonds stand cancelled. The respondents-accused are directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within a period of four weeks from this order. If the High Court does not dispose of their appeal in a reasonable time, then they are at liberty to apply for bail afresh before the High Court which will be adjudicated on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.