Nitu Kumar Versus Gulveer & Anr

Nitu Kumar Versus Gulveer & Anr

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1547 OF 2022
Nitu Kumar       …Appellant(s)
Versus
Gulveer & Anr.                …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 11120 of 2022, by which, the High Court
has directed to release respondent No. 1 – accused on bail
in connection  with Case Crime No. 80 of 2021 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of Police Station
Rohata,   District   Meerut,   the   original   complainant   has
preferred the present appeal.    
1
2. That on 19.06.2021, on the report of the informant – Nitu
Kumar,   an   FIR   being   Case   Crime   No.   80/2021   under
Section 302 IPC of Police Station Rohata, District Meerut,
came to be registered against accused Shekhar, Gulveer
(respondent No. 1 herein) and one another person. During
the course of the investigation, statement of eye­witness –
Narender   has   been   recorded.   In   his   statement   under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., a specific role has been attributed to
respondent No. 1 that he caught hold of the deceased and
the co­accused Shekhar caused the injury on the neck of
the deceased. In the FIR, the motive was also alleged. That
respondent No. 1 came to be arrested on 24.06.2021. On
conclusion   of   the   investigation   and   based   on   the
statements of informant, witnesses and on the basis of
evidence collected during the investigation, a chargesheet
has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC. 
2.1 Respondent No. 1 – Gulveer filed a bail application before
the   learned   Trial   Court.   The   learned   Sessions   Judge
dismissed the said bail application. Then, respondent No.
1 – Gulveer filed the present bail application before the
2
High   Court.   Before   the   High   Court,   it   was   mainly
contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 – accused that
the only role attributed to him is catching hold of the
deceased   and   the   main   role   of   causing   injuries   to   the
deceased is assigned to the co­accused Shekhar. By the
impugned   judgment   and   order   without   considering
seriousness and gravity of the offence committed and the
role attributed to respondent No. 1 – accused and without
assigning   any   reason   and   only   by   observing   that
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of
the accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the FIR,
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made
out a case for bail” the High Court has released respondent
No. 1 on bail. 
2.2 From the aforesaid it can be seen that nothing has been
discussed   by   the   High   Court   on   the   role   attributed   to
3
respondent   No.   1   –   accused   and   his   overt   act   in
commission   of   the   offence.   The   High   Court   has   not
appreciated   that   there   is   an   eye   witness,   who   has
categorically stated that respondent No. 1 caught hold of
the deceased. The High Court ought to have appreciated
that if respondent No. 1 would not have caught hold of the
deceased   it   would   not   have   been   possible   for   the   coaccused   Shekhar   to   cause   injuries   on   the   deceased.
Therefore, the High Court ought to have appreciated that
the role attributed to respondent No. 1 can be said to be
very serious like co­accused Shekhar. As per the settled
position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a
relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. The
High Court was required to consider the gravity and the
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations
against   respondent   No.   1   –   accused.   Under   the
circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1 on bail for
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   of   IPC   is
unsustainable. 
4
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1
­ accused on bail in Case Crime No. 80/2021 of Police
Station Rohata, District Meerut for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. 
4. Now, respondent No. 1­ Gulveer – accused shall surrender
before the concerned Court/Jail authority forthwith failing
which   he   be   arrested   by   issuing   non­bailable   warrant.
However, it is observed that  the  learned Trial Court to
conduct the trial in accordance with law and on its own
merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it. The
present   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent. No costs. 
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
5

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