Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Bail Declined

(IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 201, 120B – Murder – Despite and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the charge sheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a nonspeaking order has directed to release the accused on bail – Order HC quashed

Bysclaw

May 9, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

RAHUL GUPTA — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent

( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1343-44 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos. 012669 – 012670 of 2022)

Decided on : 04-05-2023

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 201, 120B – Murder – Accused have been charge sheeted after investigation for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of the IPC – Despite and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the charge sheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a nonspeaking order has directed to release the accused on bail – By further observing that there is a possibility that trial may take long time to conclude. In a case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in which one person was guilty, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material collected during the investigation – Matter has been remitted back to the High Court to decide the bail applications afresh – Impugned order passed by the High Court releasing accused on bail is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Amit Pai, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Basoya, Advocate, Mr. Namit Saxena, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J. – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicate for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2363/2022 and S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 10068/2022, by which, the High Court has directed to enlarge original accused – private respondents herein on bail in connection with FIR No. 474/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of IPC, the original complainant/informant has preferred the present appeals.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that private respondents – accused have been chargesheeted after investigation for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of the IPC. Despite the above and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the chargesheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a nonspeaking order has directed to release the accused – private respondents herein on bail by further observing that there is a possibility that trial may take long time to conclude. In a case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in which one person was guilty, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material collected during the investigation. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that the only observations made by the High Court are in paragraph 4 which reads as under: –

‘4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.’

When the accused are chargesheeted after the investigation, the High Court ought to have taken note of and/or considered the material collected during the investigation even to find out whether there is any material collected during the investigation involving the accused for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, whether it is a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail or not. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the High Court to decide the bail applications afresh.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused has submitted that wife of accused – Sunil Gupta is suffering from brain haemorrhage. It will be open for the accused to prayer for interim bail and/or seek bail on that ground which may be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.

4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing private respondents herein -original accused on bail is hereby quashed and set aside. Original accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail authority within a period of 10 days from today and thereafter, the High Court to decide and dispose of the bail application(s) afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and after perusing and/or taking into consideration the material/evidence collected during the investigation which are now a part of the chargesheet and upon taking into consideration the relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while examining the prayer for bail.

After surrender, the High Court on remand to decide and dispose of the bail application(s) as observed hereinabove at the earliest. With this the present appeals are allowed.

By sclaw

Related Post

Bail Declined

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no.1 —The High Court’s decision was not in line with established principles for granting bail — The material on record indicates respondent no.1’s involvement in the scam — The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the potential impact on the trial when granting bail —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483(3) — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 4 and 44(1)(b) — The Supreme Court has set aside orders of the Delhi High Court that stayed the bail granted to appellant accused in a money laundering case — The court observed that the power to grant an interim stay of an order granting bail can only be exercised in exceptional cases where a strong prima facie case of the existence of grounds for cancellation of bail is made out — The court further clarified that as a normal rule, ex parte stay of an order granting bail should not be granted and the court must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case was an exceptional one — The appeals were allowed on these terms, and the findings recorded in the judgment were only for considering the legality and validity of the order of stay on the order granting bail.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined

Criminal Law – Double Murder – The case involves multiple criminal appeals against bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to accused in a double murder – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the trial -The appellant-complainant argued that the accused have a history of criminal activity, were the aggressors in the incident, and there is a risk of them tampering with witnesses – The accused-respondents assured they would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial, highlighting their permanent residence in the village – The Supreme Court quashed the bail orders, directing the accused to surrender, and emphasized that the observations made are not an opinion on the merits of the matter – The Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense, the role of the accused, and their criminal antecedents – The Supreme Court applied established legal principles for bail consideration, focusing on the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offense, and the likelihood of influencing the trial – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents do not deserve bail and set aside the High Court’s orders, with a provision for the accused to apply for bail under new circumstances at a later stage.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw