9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being Crime Case No. 16/2021 on 09.01.2021 at PS Para, Lucknow under Section 307 IPC against Respondent No. 2/Accused Harjeet Yadav, co-accused Sushil Kumar Yadav and two unknown persons. The allegations against the said accused persons were that on the night of 08.01.2021, at around 8.30 PM, Appellant's father Mr. Virendera Yadav (deceased) was on way to his home from the lawn located near Jaipuria School and at the same time, the accused persons took position on Kulhad Katta Bridge and fired at him with the common intention to kill the deceased. The bullet shot hit his right cheek and made its exit through the other side leaving him severely injured. In view of his serious condition, the people present on the spot informed the local police station and admitted him at the Trauma Centre, Medical College, Lucknow. The Appellant/Informant, on receiving the information about his injured father rushed to the Trauma Centre with his mother Smt. Sunita Yadav and elder sister Ms. Jyoti Yadav. The Appellant's mother asked her husband about the incident to which he replied that he was shot by Respondent No.2/Accused Harjeet Yadav and one, Sushil Yadav and that they were accompanied by two ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial; 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment; 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail; 4. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant; 6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g student, pursuing the course of D.Pharma from Himalayan Garhwal University, Uttarakhand having no criminal antecedents and the case registered against him under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is an off-shoot of the instant case and has been lodged on the basis of erroneous recovery in the instant case. 13. It was further submitted that no particular role has been attributed to the Respondent No.2/Accused, nor has he been expressly mentioned by the deceased in his statement, which simply states that Ratilal's younger son shot the deceased. Furthermore, granting bail on the first day of hearing does not violate any established legal concept, statutory requirement or precedent. 14. It was further submitted that while granting bail to the Respondent No.2/Accused, the High Court has weighed all relevant factors, including the nature of the charge, the gravity of the offence and penalty, the nature of evidence and the criminal history of the accused. 15. Heavy reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Babu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2018) 3 SCC 22. 16. We have carefully considered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not excepted, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 21. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee And Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in mind while considering 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 accusation; (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, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 22. The decision in Prasanta(Supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another (2012) 9 SCC 446, Ranjit Singh Vs. State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 25. Similarly, the parameters to be taken into considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. The consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well. These are not matters involving the private rights of two individual parties, as in a civil proceeding. The proper enforcement of criminal law is a matter of public interest. We must, therefore, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding." C. Cancellation of Bail 30. This Court has reiterated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under :- "12...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court" 33. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2021 lodged under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and was the main assailant who had a weapon in his hand. The main role of Respondent No.2/Accused was that he opened fire at the deceased due to which the bullet hit his right cheek and made its exit through the other side. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2021 Respondent No.2/Accused had the intention to murder the deceased as there was previous enmity between him and the deceased with regard to some land which Respondent No.2 threatened to grab. On being asked about the incident by the Appellant/Informant's mother, the deceased replied "Ratipal ka dusra number ka ladka aur ram asre ka putra Sushil Yadav ne pull par gaadi rukwakar goli maar di hai or unke sath 2 ladke aur the". On re-clarifying, the deceased replied "Ratipal ka dusra number ka ladka matlab Harjeet Yadav". Respondent No.2/accused has clearly been named by the deceased and he was actively involved in opening fire which caused the death of the deceased. Respondent No. 2/Accused's statement was recorded by the then IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which he admitted to having committed the offence. Respondent No. 2 has a criminal history and several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
