Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court Case 2022

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.97 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
With 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 06.10.2020 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application Nos. 6294 of 2020 and 7992 of 2020 by
1
which the High Court has released respective respondents
No.2 herein on bail in connection with Case Crime No.203 of
2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149,   323,   504,   506,   302,   307   and   34   of   the   IPC,   P.S.
Barhaj, District Deoria, the original informant/complainant
– father of the deceased has preferred the present appeals.  
2. That the appellant herein lodged an FIR against respective
respondents No.2 and others for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and
34 of the IPC for murder of his son. Respective respondents
No.2 – accused applied to release them on bail before the
learned Sessions Courts/Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.
By detailed judgment(s) and order(s) dated 19.11.2019 and
22.01.2020, the learned Sessions Courts rejected the said
bail applications after perusing the case dairy and other
documents. The learned Sessions Courts observed that the
accused persons are named in the FIR and it has been
alleged   that   all   the   accused   persons   with   a   common
intention attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and
rod   and   killed   the   son   of   the   complainant.   The   learned
Sessions Court noted that in the statement of witnesses
2
recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC the relevant witnesses
have   given   evidence   in   support   of   the   incident.   That
thereafter respective respondents No.2 approached the High
Court by way of present applications under Section 439
Cr.PC to release them on bail. By the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s), the High Court applied the wrong facts (which
has   been   demonstrated   hereinbelow)   and   has   released
respective respondents No.2 on bail.      
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court releasing
respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail,   the   original
complainant   –   father   of   the   deceased   has   preferred   the
present appeals.
4. Shri   Vijay   Kumar   Shukla   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   complainant   has   vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing
respective respondents No.2 on bail. 
4.1 It is  vehemently submitted by Shri  Vijay  Kumar Shukla
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
while   releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail,   the
3
High Court has applied the wrong facts. It is submitted that
the High Court in the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
has noted that the accused were not named in the FIR, but
their   names   have   figured   up   during   investigation.   It   is
submitted   that   aforesaid   is   factually   incorrect.   It   is
submitted that respective respondents No.2 were named in
the FIR right from the beginning. It is submitted that it was
not the case on behalf of the accused that they were not
named in the FIR and that their names were figured up
during investigation. It is submitted that even the respective
learned Sessions Courts while rejecting the bail applications
have specifically noted that the accused were named in the
FIR. 
4.2 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that the High Court has noted that
the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC
were recorded after inordinate delay of more than 20 days.
It is submitted that the same is factually incorrect. It is
submitted   that   as   such   the   statements   of   the   relevant
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the
very day of the incident. 
4
4.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail the
High Court has not taken into consideration the gravity and
the   nature   of   offences   committed   by   the   accused.   It   is
submitted that the High Court has not at all noted and/or
considered that the offence alleged was under Section 149
of the IPC also and therefore when it was found that all the
accused   persons   with   a   common   intention   attacked   the
deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son
of   the   complainant,   the   individual   role   played   by   each
accused is insignificant and not a relevant consideration at
all. 
4.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise as such except
noting the submissions made on behalf of the accused as
well as by learned Public Prosecutor and thereafter making
the general observations that keeping in view the nature of
the   offence,   evidence,   complicity   of   the   accused,
submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
accused has made out a fit case for bail, no further reasons
are   assigned.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   order(s)
passed by the High Court releasing respective respondents
5
No.2 – accused have been passed mechanically and without
proper   application   of   mind   and   without   considering   the
relevant considerations of grant of bail as held by this Court
in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129 are not at all adhered to
and/or considered.    
       
5. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG appearing
on behalf of the State has supported the appellant. It is
submitted that in such grave offences under Sections 302,
147, 148, 149 of the IPC, the High Court ought not to have
released the respective respondents No.2 on bail.    
6. The present appeals are opposed by Shri Krishna M. Singh,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused   –
respective respondents No.2. 
6.1 It is submitted that as such it was never the case on behalf
of the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or
that   the  statements   of  the   witnesses  under  Section   161
Cr.PC   were   recorded   at   a   later   stage/belatedly.   He   has
taken   us   to   the   relevant   averments   made   in   the   bail
applications.
6
6.2 It is submitted that however, when the role attributed to
respective respondents No.2 is that they used the wicket
and nothing is on record that they used any deadly weapon
and/or caused the injury on the vital part of the body of the
deceased, the High Court has not committed any error in
releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail   more
particularly when respective respondents No.2 – accused
were in jail since 26.08.2019 and 05.09.2020, respectively
and that accused have no criminal antecedents.            
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.   
8. At  the  outset,  it  is  required  to  be  noted  that  respective
respondents No.2 and other accused are charge­sheeted for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC. That as per the case
of   the   complainant   and   the   prosecution   all   the   accused
including   respective   respondents   No.2   herein   with   a
common intention attacked the deceased by sword, hockey,
stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. As per
the post mortem report, five injuries were found on the body
7
of the deceased and fracture in the occipital region of head
in right side and presence of hematoma in brain was found.
8.1 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.
Even   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
accused has submitted that it was not the case on behalf of
the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or
that   the  statements   of  the   witnesses  under  Section   161
Cr.PC   were   recorded   belatedly   and/or   at   a   later   stage.
Therefore, it appears that the High Court has granted the
bail to respective respondents No.2 in such serious offences
8
in which one person was killed mechanically and without
applying the correct facts. 
8.2 Even otherwise the High Court has not at all appreciated
the fact that all the accused were charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 also along
with Section 302 of the IPC and as noted by the learned
Sessions Court vide order dated 19.11.2019 that all the
accused   persons   with   a   common   intention   attacked   the
deceased – Sumit Jaiswal by deadly weapons like sword,
hockey,   stick   and   rod.   The   High   Court   has   noted   the
submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that   role
attributed to  respective respondents No.2 that using the
wicket as weapon it is difficult to decipher at that stage that
the accused have caused fatal injury over the person. When
the accused were charged for the offences punishable under
Section 149 of the IPC also and when their presence has
been established and it is stated that they were part of the
unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by
the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant. 
8.3 Even   otherwise   the   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court
releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail   in   such
9
serious   offences   in   which   one   person   was   killed   is
unsustainable.   The   High   Court   has   not   adverted   to   the
gravity and nature of the offences at all. Even no reasons
are assigned by the High Court except observing in one
paragraph as under:­
“The   submissions   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the
applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing
for the purpose of bail only.               
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and without  expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the
applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”
The aforesaid can hardly be said to be assigning the
reasons. 
9. Even otherwise, the High Court has also not considered the
relevant considerations while grant of bail as observed and
held by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav (supra).
In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court
that 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
10
justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)
likelihood of his tampering. From the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s), it appears that the High Court has not at all
adverted to the relevant facts and/or considerations while
granting bail. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the
High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail
mechanically and on applying the wrong facts which even as
per   the   accused   were   not   their   cases.   The   impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) releasing respective respondents
No.2 on bail are unsustainable both on facts as well as on
law. 
           
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and
order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   respective
respondents No.2 on bail are hereby quashed and set aside.
Now   respondent   No.2   –   Pradyumn   alias   Pradumn   alias
Deepak   Gupta   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.97   of   2022   and
respondent No.2 ­ Shalu in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2022
to   surrender   forthwith.   However,   it   is   observed   that   the
observations made in the present order be confined for the
11
purpose of deciding the bail only and the learned Trial Court
shall   proceed   with   the   trial   and   decide   the   same   in
accordance with law and on the basis of the evidences led
by   both   the   sides.   The   present   appeals   are   accordingly
allowed. 
…………………………………J.
   (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (Sanjiv Khanna)
New Delhi, 
January, 25th 2022
12

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर