Section 302/149 IPC – HC Applied Wrong Facts, Seriousness And Gravity Of Offence Not Considered – SC Reverses HC's Order Granting Bail
A two-judge Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has held that High Court did not consider the relevant considerations and applied wrong facts while granting bail to the accused.
The Court in this context held –
"…it appears that the High Court has granted the bail to respective respondents No.2 in such serious offences in which one person was killed mechanically and without applying the correct facts."
Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla appeared for the Appellant-Complainant, AAG Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad appeared for the State, Advocate Mr. Krishna M. Singh appeared for Respondent No. 2 - Accused before the Supreme Court.
An appeal was preferred by the Complainant- father of the deceased assailing the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had released Respondent No.2 – Accused on bail who was allegedly charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of IPC.
It was alleged by the Appellant before the Supreme Court that the High Court applied wrong facts while granting bail to the accused. Further, it was argued that High Court in its impugned judgment noted that the accused were not named in the FIR, but their names cropped up during the investigation, thus this was a factually incorrect consideration by the HC. The Appellant further contended that the names of the accused were present in the FIR from the very beginning.
While the Respondent argued that it was never a case on behalf of the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or their statements were recorded belatedly under Section 161 CrPC.
The Apex Court noted, "Despite the fact that all the accused persons were named in the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the very day, on applying the wrong facts, the High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail."
"The High Court has noted the submissions made on behalf of the accused, which has been accepted by the High Court that the accused were not named in the FIR and that their names were disclosed during investigation and that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded at a later stage/belatedly. The aforesaid are factually incorrect," the Bench opined.
Further, the Bench observed that the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 in such serious offences in which one person was killed mechanically and without applying the correct facts.
Additionally, the Court held that the High Court had not at all appreciated the fact that the accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, and 149 also along with Section 302 of the IPC.
The Court observed that the order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail in such serious offences in which one person was killed was unsustainable., in this context, the Court held –
"The High Court has not adverted to the gravity and nature of the offences at all."
While placing reliance on Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, the Bench observed that the High Court did not consider the relevant considerations for the grant of bail as stipulated in this case which were - (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.
In the light of these observations, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside and quashed the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed the Respondent to surrender.