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