9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 31.05.2017 and 08.09.2017. By virtue of the first impugned order, bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) was cancelled and by the second impugned order, bail granted to other Accused were cancelled. 3. The case of prosecution is that on 21.10.2015, Rohit Bansal (injured witness) along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh (deceased) and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in two separate cars, i.e. Santro being registration No. UP-16-AM-6317 and Honda Civic being registration No. DL-7CF-4118. At around midnight 12.00-12.15, while dancing in the club, Rohit Bansal's hand struck an individual to whom he said "sorry". On this, the said individual abused and questioned Rohit Bansal and quarrel started between the two groups and the said individual took a glass from one of his friends and hit the complainant-Rohit Bansal; but the matter was pacified by the bouncers/security personnel of the club. Thereafter, the complainant-Rohit Bansal and his friends were sent out of the club and after coming out of the club when they reached IIT Gate, then Rohit Bansal realized that his mobile phone was missing which might have fallen during the quarrel and he along with his friends Rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the minute details of the case is not warranted and placing reliance upon Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court thereby cancelling the bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4). Being aggrieved by cancellation of bail, Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) preferred appeal before this Court. Vide order dated 16.06.2017, this Court issued notice and stayed surrender of Anil Kumar Yadav (A4). 7. While the appeal against grant of bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) was under consideration before the High Court, rest of the Accused were granted bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 24.04.2017, inter alia, on the ground that co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) had already been granted bail and that they were in custody for about one and half years. 8. When the appeal of Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) came up for further hearing before this Court, State took time to take steps to challenge the order of grant of bail to other Accused also. By order dated 08.09.2017, the High Court cancelled the bail granted to other Accused also. Being aggrieved, other Accused have also filed their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ Shammi and the trial court had rightly granted bail. It was contended that based on the consideration of relevant materials, the trial court exercised its discretion in granting bail to the Accused and the High Court was not right in setting aside the same. 13. On behalf of the prosecution, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the statements of injured witness Rohit Bansal and other witnesses prima facie show involvement of the Accused in attacking the deceased Rupesh Tanwar and injured witness Rohit Bansal. It was submitted that based on the statement recorded from the Accused, the incriminating articles were also recovered from the Accused and the trial court ignored these relevant materials prima facie indicating involvement of the Accused. It was submitted that the trial court granted bail based on the alleged discrepancies in CCTV footage and discrepancies in statement of the witnesses which are not relevant consideration for grant of bail and the High Court rightly set aside the order granting bail to the Accused and the impugned orders warrant no interference. Placing reliance upon Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a common order. 18. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:(i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused; and (iii) likelihood of the Accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast Rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. 19. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail, in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, this Court has held as under: 18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 and basically they are--the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the Accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the Accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case........... 21. In the present case, Accused Anil Kumar Yadav was granted bail by the Sessions Court mainly on the grounds:-(i) as per CCTV footage deciphered by the Investigating Officer, no role could be attributed to Anil Kumar Yadav that he inflicted injuries on Rohit Bansal as well as to deceased Rupesh Tanwar and the photographs do not show the presence of the Accused Anil Kumar Yadav; (ii) CCTV footage do not corroborate the statement of the witnesses that the Accused along with their cars were blocking the road; and (iii) Accused Anil Kumar Yadav has been in custody since 31.10.2015. The Sessions Court pointed out that possibly no role could be attributed to Accused Anil Kumar Yadav and observed as under: .......Admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, the Respondent is indicated inflicting injuries to the victim along with others at 1:37:30; 1:37:31; and 1:37:31 respectively. In photograph No. 3, Mercedes is seen at the spot at 1:34:49. In photo No. 5 the Respondent is seen entering the Mercedes at 1:38:29. It belies the Respondent's contention that the Mercedes entered for the first time in the lane of the occurrence only at 1:37:56. In photos Mark 'A' and 'B' the Respondent's car is seen at the spot at 1:30:41 and 1:31:50 too. 23. The High Court had gone into the details of CCTV footage and noted the presence of Accused Anil Kumar Yadav at the scene of occurrence that "he was seen entering into the Mercedes". The Sessions Court was not right in raising doubts about the presence of Accused Anil Kumar Yadav and his role in inflicting injuries to deceased Rupesh Tanwar as well as to the injured Rohit Bansal at the present stage. Since the Sessions Court proceeded to grant bail on erroneous footing and also going into the merits of the materials collected, the High Court, in our view, rightly set aside the order granting bail to the Accused Anil Kumar Yadav. 24. As pointed out earlier, one of the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court granted bail to the Appellants/Accused on the ground of discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, CCTV footage and the period of incarceration of the Accused which are not relevant considerations for grant of bail by the Sessions Court in the facts and stage of this case. 28. In Kanwar Singh Meena case, the High Court granted bail ignoring the averments made against the Accused thereon and statement of witnesses recorded Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure Pointing out that the High Court did not keep in view the prima facie materials against the Accused, this Court cancelled the bail. By setting aside the order of bail, in para (10), this Court observed as under: 10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the Accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the Accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be posted for 04.12.2017. For ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the Appellants are not enlarged on bail. 30. We are conscious of the fact that the Appellants are only under trials and their liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society, a balance has to be struck. Referring to Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 286 and other cases, in State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav (2017) 2 SCC 178, this Court held as under: 26. We are conscious of the fact that the Respondent is only an undertrial and his liberty is also a relevant consideration. However, equally important consideration is the interest of the society and fair trial of the case. Thus, undoubtedly the courts have to adopt a liberal approach while co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and significance to the greatest prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the Accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation. 32. It was repeatedly urged that the High Court misdirected itself in interfering with the discretionary order of Sessions Court granting bail to the Accused and there was absolutely nothing to show that the Appellants are likely to abuse the bail or tamper with evidence. The court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. Of course, once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials, the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion, unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity. While considering the correctness of the order granting bail, the approach should be whether the order granting bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
