Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
"Very Cryptic Reasoning": Supreme Court Sets Aside HC's Bail Order In Murder Case
|The Supreme Court restored the Order of the Trial Court that had declined to grant regular bail to the accused.
The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that granted bail to a murder accused while remarking that the said relief was granted in with a “very cryptic reasoning.”
The Court restored the Order of the Trial Court that had declined to grant regular bail to the accused for offences registered under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that “the respondent-accused (s) have been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It may be a fact that the respondent-accused(s) may have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the Hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who actually had committed the offence in the first place in the instant case. The trial court has rightly noted the said aspect and declined to grant bail. However, the High Court has set aside the said order and in a very cryptic reasoning has granted the relief of bail.”
Senior Advocate Dev Datt Kamat appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Rai represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The impugned Order of the High Court had set aside the order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the accused and had consequently allowed their petitions for bail.
The Prosecution alleged that the accused had allegedly struck the deceased's head with a wooden stick, while co-accused inflicted injuries on the deceased and others accompanying the Appellant. The Appellant witnessed the entire incident but fled fearing for his life, later discovering that the accused took the deceased to the hospital where he was found to be dead.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “In the above backdrop, the respondents had earlier preferred an application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC before the trial court by way of separate bail applications bearing Nos. BA-612-2024 (accused No. 1) and BA-634-2024 (accused No. 2). The same came to be dismissed by orders dated 21.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively, finding that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other criminal cases have also been registered against him and keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by the respondents.”
The Bench directed, “Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct them to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate or the concerned Police Station on or before 16.06.2025, who will take them into custody.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is restored.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Baljinder Singh Alias Aman v. State Of Punjab & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 796)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Dev Datt Kamat; Advocates Revanta Solanki, Hruday Bajentri, Lalit Singla, VPS Mithewal, Shivam Garg, Varsha Sharma, Lalit Singla, Shakeel Ahmed, Lara Siddiqui, Pratibha Singh, Dhruv Kaushik, Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui and Vikram Patralekh; AOR Raj Kishor Choudhary
Respondents: Senior Advocate Randeep Singh Rai; AOR Siddhant Sharma, Karan Sharma, Pushpinder Singh and Gopal Jha; Advocates Osheen Bhat, Aman Dwivedi, Anurag Rana, Dharmendar Singh, Harsh Wadhwani, D. Bharat Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Aman Shukla, M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Mehak Sharma and Yash Gupta