Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - 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

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336 and 427 – Murder – Cancellation of Bail — The Supreme Court found the High Court’s orders lacked detailed consideration of facts, especially given the severity of the crime and the specific naming of the respondents in the FIR – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and directed them to surrender to custody

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined

Grant of Bail – Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order lacked legal sustenance as it did not properly consider the detailed evidence against respondent no.2. – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for brief reasons in bail decisions, as established by precedent – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and respondent no.2 was given three weeks to surrender – The order does not prejudice subsequent proceedings or bar fresh bail applications.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw
Bail Declined Prevention of Money Laundering

“Supreme Court Denies Bail to Ex-Delhi Minister Satyendar Kumar Jain in Money Laundering Case: PMLA’s Stringent Bail Conditions Upheld”

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw