AMINUDDIN VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

AMINUDDIN VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …….. OF 2022

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 5029 OF 2021)

AMINUDDIN ………APPELLANT(S)

 VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ………RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, at whose behest FIR No. 438 of 2019 dated

10.07.2019 came to be registered at Police Station Kasganj, District

Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,

352 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601

, has preferred this appeal by

permission and by special leave, in challenge to the order dated

03.12.2020, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20894 of 2020.

2.1. By order impugned, the High Court has granted the concession of

bail to one of the accused persons (respondent No. 2 herein), essentially

1 ‘IPC’, for short.

1

on the consideration that identically placed co-accused persons had

already been granted bail. The appellant has, inter alia, pointed out that

the order granting bail to one of the alleged identically placed co-accused

has been disapproved by this Court in the judgment and order dated

15.03.2021, as passed in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021 arising out of

SLP(Crl.) No. 6744 of 2020.

3. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as

follows: The appellant had lodged the First Information Report on

10.07.2019 at about 09:08 p.m. with the allegations that his son Danish

was attacked with knife and sharp weapons by as many as 7 persons

when he was coming from his house for milking the cattle. It was further

alleged that the victim Danish sustained grievous injuries because of such

assault and died on the spot. Two persons, Nisar and Jalil, were said to

be the eye-witnesses to the incident. As many as 8 ante-mortem injuries

were detected on the person of the deceased, most of which had been

either incise wounds or stab wounds on and around the neck and the

chest. One of the accused persons, Imran, was arrested on 11.07.2019.

As per the assertion of the Investigating Officer, the other accused

persons, including the present respondent No. 2, remained absconding

wherefor, non-bailable warrants and then, even proclamation under

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued. The

other accused persons surrendered or were apprehended on different

dates. The respondent No. 2 surrendered on 02.09.2019.

2

4. The application for bail moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2

was declined by the Sessions Court and then, the first bail application

moved on his behalf in the High Court, being Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 4842 of 2020 came to be dismissed on 10.02.2020 for

non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 moved the second bail

application bearing No. 20894 of 2020 that has been considered and

allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 03.12.2020.

Before that, the bail application of one of the co-accused, Fahim, bearing

No. 6083 of 2020 was allowed by the High Court on 25.02.2020.

5. As regards the second bail application moved on behalf of the

respondent No. 2, the frontal submission had been that identically placed

persons had been granted bail and, therefore, he was also entitled to the

same relief on parity. This submission was considered by the High Court

and only for this reason that the co-accused had been granted bail, the

High Court proceeded to accept the application made on behalf of the

respondent No. 2 and ordered his release on bail with certain conditions.

The relevant aspects of the order impugned, carrying the submissions

made on behalf of the appellant, the opposition by the counsel for the

State and consideration of the High Court, could be usefully reproduced

as under: -

“Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general

allegations against all the accused persons. It is next submitted

that co-accused, namely, Faim, Nasir and Qamruddin have been

granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc.

3

Bail Application Nos. 6083 of 2020, 11840 of 2020 and 21839 of

2020 vide orders dated 25.2.2020, 17.6.2020 and 26.8.2020

respectively. Copy of the order granting bail to co-accused Faim

has been annexed at page no. 60 to the affidavit filed in support of

the bail application while copy of the orders granting bail to Nasir

and Qamruddin has been produced today in Court, which are

taken on record. It is argued that the case of the applicant stands

on identical footing as that of co-accused who have been granted

bail, hence, he may be granted bail on ground of parity. It has also

been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal

history as stated in para-21 of the affidavit and he is in jail since

2.9.2019 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and

hence, the applicant may be released on bail during pendency of

trial.

Per contra, learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer

for bail but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no

criminal antecedents.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking

to the fact that identically placed co-accused persons have been

granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant be released on

bail.”

6. In this matter, on 12.07.2021, this Court granted permission to the

present appellant to file the petition for leave to appeal and issued notices

to the respondents. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed on behalf

of the State as also on behalf of the respondent No. 2. While the State

has supported the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, the

respondent No. 2 has opposed, while supporting the order impugned.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued

in the first place that the High Court granted bail to the respondent No. 2

only for the reason of the orders passed in favour of the co-accused

persons, including the order dated 25.02.2020 granting bail to the coaccused Fahim but then, the order so passed by the High Court in favour

of the co-accused was not approved by this Court and was set aside by

4

the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of

2021. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the very

basis of grant of bail to the respondent No. 2 having been knocked out,

the impugned order cannot sustain itself and deserves to be set aside.

7.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that while

granting bail to the respondent No. 2, the High Court has totally omitted to

consider that the present case had been of a broad day-light murder of

the son of the appellant in brutal and gruesome manner where 7 persons

attacked him with sharp weapons and caused as many as 8 grievous

injuries on vital parts of the body. In such a matter, the learned counsel

has contended, the order granting bail even before commencement of the

trial suffers from gross illegality and impropriety and, therefore, deserves

to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the State has duly supported the submissions

made on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the impugned

order deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has

countered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the State,

and has contended that the impugned order does not call for interference

merely because this Court has set aside the order granting bail to the coaccused Fahim.

5

9.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that in

the said order dated 15.03.2021, the major aspects had been that no

counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-accused and then,

on the date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the said co-accused

sought an adjournment, which was declined by the Court. Thus,

according to the learned counsel, the order dated 15.03.2021 does not

operate against the interests of respondent No. 2.

9.2. Learned counsel has further submitted that a strong case for grant

of bail in favour of the respondent No. 2 was made out, and therefore, the

High Court had rightly granted him bail. In support of these submissions,

learned counsel has relied upon the factors that the respondent No. 2 had

been in custody since 02.09.2019; that he had no negative antecedents

or adverse records; that no specific role has been assigned to him as

regards the incident in question; and that the story of the prosecution

appears to be palpably false for the scientific reason that 7 accused

persons could not have inflicted injuries on the body of the decease with 7

knives at the same time.

9.3. Learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of the

present appellant had already been completed in the trial and there had

not been any allegation of tempering with the witnesses. Thus, according

to the learned counsel, the impugned order granting bail to the

respondent No.2 does not call for interference.

6

10. In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the eye-witnesses, namely Nasir and Jalil, are yet to be

examined and looking to the nature of the accusations and the order

passed by this Court in relation to the co-accused person, the impugned

order deserves to be set aside.

11. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and

having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the impugned

order dated 03.12.2020 cannot be approved from any standpoint.

12. A perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that in essence,

the principal part of submissions before the High Court on behalf of the

present respondent No. 2, while seeking bail, had been that the coaccused persons had been granted bail and he was entitled to the same

relief on the ground of parity because his case was standing on identical

footing. The other submissions had been that the respondent No. 2 was

in custody since 02.09.2019; that he had no criminal history; and that trial

was likely to take time. The High Court did not consider any other aspect

of the matter at all and proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2

only for the reason that the so-called identically placed co-accused

persons had already been granted bail. The fact that the order granting

bail to the co-accused Fahim met with its strong disapproval by this Court

remains rather indisputable.

7

13. In the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021, this Court took note

of the fact that the High Court had granted bail to the co-accused while

ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the

mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant

observations and comments by this Court in the judgment and order

dated 15.03.2021 could be usefully extracted as under: -

“7 The circumstances would indicate that a brutal murder has

been committed of the son of the appellant. The postmortem

report would indicate as many as eight ante mortem injuries. The

offence is alleged to have taken place in broad day light. The First

Information Report being Case Crime No 438 of 2019 was

registered at about 2108 hours, within a period of four hours of the

incident which is alleged to have taken place at 1715 hours on the

same day. After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet

has been submitted before the competent court under Section 173

of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In several judgments of

this Court, the need for the High Court to adduce reasons while

granting bail has been underscored. At this stage, we may advert

to the recent decision in Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar2

 , which was

relied on by Ms Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel for the State of

UP. Speaking for a two-Judge Bench, one of us (Justice D Y

Chandrachud, J) observed:

“25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the

facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the

purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental

premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is

committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the

Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the

order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that

justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and

undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give

reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.

Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals

undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the

criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit

crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.

Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have

arrived at a conclusion.

27. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish

the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of

the non-application of mind which may require the intervention

of this Court.”

2 (2020) 2 SCC 118

8

8 In the present case, the High Court has merely observed that

bail was being granted after considering the submissions and

having regard to the “larger mandate of Article 21”. There can be

no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under

Article 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by

the High Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such

as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken

place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced

with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice

system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is

held to account. Having regard to the settled principles which

govern the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a

case such as the present, we are of the view that the order of the

High Court does not clearly pass muster. No case for the grant of

bail is made out. In granting bail, the High Court has failed to

notice relevant considerations which ought to have been, but have

not been taken into account.

9 In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside

the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 25

February 2020. As a consequence of this order, the second

respondent shall surrender forthwith.”

14. The position aforesaid equally applies to the present case too.

Moreover, when the bail granted to co-accused person has been

disapproved by this Court and such grant of bail to co-accused had been

the only reason for which the bail was granted to the respondent No. 2,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

15. The submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that there was

no proper contest on behalf of the said co-accused in this Court could

hardly take away the substance of the dictum of this Court. It is clear that

in said case, the High Court had proceeded in a rather cursory manner

and without regard to the salient feature of the case at hand, being that of

gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous

9

injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around

the neck and the chest.

16. As regards the case of respondent No. 2, we are constrained to

observe that even if the High Court proceeded to consider the fact that

the co-accused person had been granted bail, at least this much was

required that the relevant facts of the case were indicated as also the

reasons as to how the case of respondent No. 2 was treated to be

identical. The relied upon order had been suffering from failure on the part

of the High Court to notice the relevant considerations and the impugned

order equally suffers from the shortcoming that the relevant features of

the case have not at all been considered by the High Court.

17. The submissions that the respondent No. 2 had been in custody

since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves,

do not make out a case for grant of bail, looking to the seriousness of

crime in question. In this regard, the submissions of the Investigating

Officer cannot go unnoticed that while the incident took place on

10.07.2019 and one of the accused persons was arrested on 11.07.2019,

the other accused persons remained absconding and the respondent No.

2 surrendered as late as on 02.09.2019. So far the questions relating to

the role assigned to the respondent No. 2 or about the doubt on the

prosecution case, suffice it to observe at the present stage that the

respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the

assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of

10

injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or

improbable.

18. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the impugned order is

required to be set aside.

19. We have pondered over the question as to the order that needs to

be passed in this matter finally. It is noticed that in the judgment and order

dated 15.03.2021, this Court disapproved the order dated 15.02.2020

granting bail to the co-accused and directed him to surrender forthwith.

More or less the same position would apply to the present case too.

Herein, the order granting bail was passed on 03.12.2020 and the present

matter was initially taken up for consideration on 12.07.2021. Even if one

witness, that is, the present appellant, has already been examined, the

other witnesses, including the eye-witnesses, are to be examined in the

trial. In the given circumstances and in the interest of justice, we also

deem it proper to leave it open for the respondent No. 2 to apply for bail

afresh after surrendering and at an appropriate stage.

20. Accordingly and in view of above, this appeal is allowed; the

impugned order dated 03.12.2020 is set aside with the requirement that

the respondent No. 2 shall surrender forthwith. In the interest of justice, it

is provided that if the respondent No. 2 applies for bail afresh after

surrendering and at an appropriate stage, such an application may be

considered on its own merits.

11

21. In the interest of justice, it is also made clear that we have not

pronounced on the merits of the case either way and none of the

observations herein, by itself, would operate prejudicial to the interests of

the parties nor shall have any bearing on the final verdict by the Trial

Court.

22. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

 ….………………………..J.

[DINESH MAHESHWARI]

….………………………..J.

 [KRISHNA MURARI]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 23, 2022.

12