Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri Versus Subrahmanya & Another - Supreme Court Case
Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri Versus Subrahmanya & Another - Supreme Court Case
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2022
Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri …Appellant(s)
Versus
Subrahmanya & Another …Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2022
Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri …Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajesh & Another …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 10.06.2021 & 08.11.2021
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench
in Criminal Petition Nos. 101007/2021 & 101621/2021
respectively, by which the High Court has allowed the said
criminal petitions preferred by the accused Subrahmanya
1
and Rajesh (respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals)
and has directed to release the accused Subrahmanya
and Rajesh on bail in connection with Case Crime No.
157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of
the Arms Act, 1959, the original complainant has preferred
the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –
complainant has vehemently submitted that while
directing the accused respondent No. 1 in the respective
appeals to be released on bail, the High Court has not at
all considered the gravity of the offences. It is submitted
that the High Court has not at all considered the fact that
in the present case that there are two eyewitnesses and
respondent No. 1 – accused has been identified.
2.1 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant that in case of coaccused, namely, Umesh
Nagappa URF Sangappa, this Court vide judgment and
order dated 06.01.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022
has set aside the similar order passed by the High Court
2
releasing the said coaccused on bail and has
consequently cancelled the bail order.
2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
supported the appellant.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant as well as the State. Though served, none has
appeared on behalf of the accused respondent No. 1 in
the respective appeals. We have perused the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
releasing the accused on bail. Even liberty is reserved to
the State to move for cancellation of bail in the event of
this Court cancelling the bail of accused No. 4 Umesh
Nagappa URF Sangappa.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of
coaccused, namely, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, who
was also released on bail by the High Court, this Court
vide judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022
has set aside the order passed by the High Court and has
consequently cancelled the bail order in favour of the coaccused. The grounds on which the said coaccused was
3
released on bail and the grounds on which the present
respondent No. 1 – Subrahmanya is released on bail are
same. In paragraph 7, the High Court has observed as
under:
“7. As per the chargesheet, CWs. 18 and 19 are
eyewitnesses to the incident. CW19 who is running
tea shop near the spot has identified accused Nos. 1,2
and 4 in Test Identification Parade held on
31.10.2019. The police took accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 on
29.09.2019 to different places like Dandeli, Haliyal
and Dharwad and taken their photographs. Therefore,
the photographs of accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 were
available with the police and there are every chances
of the police showing them to the witnesses namely
CW19. CW18 is another eyewitness, who is the driver
of the vehicle of the deceased, who has also identified
accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 in the Test Identification
Parade and there are also chances of the police
showing the photographs of the accused to CW18
prior to Test Identification Parade. Even if the presence
of the petitioner/accused No.5 is taken into
consideration, there is no overt act alleged against
him. He was sitting on bike and the overt act alleged is
against accused No.1, who fired from the pistol to the
deceased and went away on the motorcycle along with
the accused Nos. 2 and 4. Therefore, there is no
specific overt act alleged against the
petitioner/accused No.4”
That thereafter this Court has set aside the order
passed by the High Court by observing in paragraphs 6 to
8 as under:
“6. By observing the above, virtually the High
Court has acquitted the accused. The observations
made by the High Court in para 7 are on surmises and
conjectures and the High Court has observed that
there might have been the chances of the witnesses
showing them the accused before the T.I. Parade. The
4
fact remains that the accused have been identified in a
T.I. Parade by CWs. 18 & 19, who are eyewitnesses to
the incident.
7. The High Court has not at all considered the
gravity of the offence while releasing the respondent
No.1accused on bail. Therefore, the judgment and
order passed by the High Court releasing the
Respondent No.1 on bail is unsustainable and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, the present Appeal succeeds. The
impugned order passed by the High Court in releasing
the accused on bail in connection with Crime No.
157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station is hereby
quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.1 now to
surrender before the competent authority/appropriate
jail authority within a period of one week from today.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in
judgment and order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 39/2022, the impugned judgment(s) and
order(s) passed by the High Court releasing the accused –
Subrahmanya and Rajesh, respondent No. 1 herein in the
respective appeals on bail also deserve to be quashed and
set aside. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while
releasing the accused Rajesh on bail the High Court in the
impugned judgment and order has observed that in case
this Court cancels the bail granted in favour of accused
no. 4 – Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa it would be open
for the State to move an appropriate application for
5
cancellation of the bail. Therefore, once the bail in favour
of Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa has been cancelled by
this Court, the bail in the present case also requires to be
cancelled.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeals succeed. The impugned judgments and
orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused
Subrahmanya and Rajesh, respondent No. 1 in the
respective appeals on bail in connection with Case Crime
No. 157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3)
of the Arms Act, 1959 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh are now directed to
surrender before the competent authority/appropriate jail
authority within a period of two weeks from today. If the
accused Subrahmanya & Rajesh do not surrender within a
period of two weeks from today, the concerned police
authority is directed to arrest the accused Subrahmanya
6
and Rajesh and the learned Trial Court to issue nonbailable warrant against them.
7. However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court to
decide and dispose of the trial in accordance with law and
on its own merits on the basis of the evidence led before it
and without, in any way, influenced by any of the
observations made by the High Court in the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) which otherwise are set aside by
the present order.
With this, the present Appeals are allowed.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
7
Comments
Post a Comment