//
you're reading...
legal issues

No bail when there is a history of involvement of number of crimes and when there is possibility of tampering of witnesses = ATAMARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40881

 Grounds for cancellation of Bail :- 

 

English: The supreme court of india. Taken abo...

English: The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m from the main building outside the perimeter wall (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 1. Kunwar  Singh

 

        was involved in a number of cases including four shown  pending  in

 

        the Gang Chart including one for murder and another for  rape. 

 

2. Moreover

 

        Respondent no.2 is involved in several criminal cases and  that  if

 

        he is released on bail, he  is  likely  to  tamper  with  evidence.

 

 

 

3. In these circumstances, therefore, it was incorrect  and  imprudent

 

        for the High Court to grant bail at least till  such  time  as  the

 

        examination of the eye witnesses had  been  completed.   The  Court

 

        should not lose  perspective  of  the  fact  that  intimidation  of

 

        witnesses is a common occurrence at least as  regards  persons  who

 

        have come  into  conflict  with  the  law  on  multiple  occasions.

 

        Accordingly, the impugned Order  is  set  aside  and  the  bail  of

 

        Respondent no.2 is cancelled.  His bail bonds shall stand cancelled

 

        and the sureties  discharged.   He  shall  be  taken  into  custody

 

        forthwith.

 

Grounds confirming bail orders in respect of other accused :-

 

1.The  State  has  not  alleged

 

        pendency of any previous cases against them  

 

2. it is also not  the

 

        prosecution  case  that  these  two  persons  have  endeavoured  to

 

        intimidate or influence witnesses.  

 

3. For these reasons,  so  far  as

 

        these two Respondents are concerned,  the  impugned  Order  is  not

 

        interfered with.   

 

4. It is, however, made  clear  that  if  they  are

 

        found to be intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with

 

        the evidence the bail granted to these respondents shall be  liable

 

        to be cancelled.

 

REPORTABLE

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]

 

 

 
Atmaram …..Appellant

 
Versus

 
State of U.P. & Anr. …..Respondents

 
W I T H

 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]

 
Atmaram …..Appellant

 
Versus

 
State of U.P. & Ors. …..Respondents

 

 

 
J U D G M E N T

 

 

 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

 
Crl.Appeal No. 1678 of 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]

 
1. Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the Chauki-in-
charge, Sheikpura Kadi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, U.P. that on
13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, namely, Kunwar Singh and other co-
accused had cut the ridge of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in
an altercation between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other
persons, namely, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif @
Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site; Kunwar
Singh and Rafal Singh were armed with Balkati and the others with
lathis. The six persons allegedly attacked the Appellant, his sons,
namely, Sanjay and Baliram and his grandson Udaiveer all of whom
suffered serious injuries. All of them stand charged under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302 I.P.C. Sanjay (deceased) suffered the
following injuries:
“(i) Multiple LW 8 x 4 cm top of head into bone deep 12 cm above
(eligible) root of nose CTs 6 x 8 cm.
(ii) IW 6 x 6 cm into bone deep rt side head 7 cm above rt ear
K/W.”
According to the Medical Report Injury no.(i) has been caused by hard
and blunt object and Injury no.(ii) by sharp edged object. Although
Respondent no.2 Kunwar Singh has set up an alibi, it is not in dispute
that it was he who had taken the members of his group to the hospital
on that fateful day itself. Eventually, he was granted bail by the
impugned Order in respect of Case Crime No.29/119 of 2011 registered
for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302,
I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
2. On the other hand, the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, had
prior thereto noted that Kunwar Singh had been named in the FIR,
along with a specific role. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was
obviously influenced by the fact that injuries on Sanjay (deceased)
were on vital part of the body, i.e., the head; that on the
indication of Kunwar Singh, the Balkati was recovered from a
sugarcane field and that the unrebutted case is that Kunwar Singh
was involved in a number of cases including four shown pending in
the Gang Chart including one for murder and another for rape. In
the view of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, these were
sufficient reasons to decline bail as transpires from his Order
dated 20.5.2011.
3. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate had submitted to the High
Court, and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of U.P.
has similarly pressed before us, that the Applicant-Respondent no.2
was armed with the reaping hook (Balkati) and the deceased had
sustained Injury no.2 allegedly by this weapon. Moreover
Respondent no.2 is involved in several criminal cases and that if
he is released on bail, he is likely to tamper with evidence.
Learned Counsel for Respondent no.2 has contended that all the
cases in which Respondent no.2 has been named, he has been
acquitted in two and has been released on bail in the third. The
High Court was impressed with the view that the occurrence has
taken place in a sudden quarrel and, therefore, there was no “pre-
intention” or pre-meditation; that it has not been specified as to
whose blow caused the incised wound being Injury no.2; that it was
difficult to decide which party was the aggressor; that Respondent
no.2, the Applicant before the High Court, was in jail since
25.3.2011. It was in these premises that Kunwar Singh had been
granted bail on terms in the impugned Order dated 5.9.2011.
4. In the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P., the
criminal history of Respondent no.2 is contained in the following
table :

 
|S.No. |Crime No. |Sections |Police Station|District |
|1. |29/119/2011 |Under Sec.147,|Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| | |148, 149, 323,| | |
| | |325, 302 IPC | | |
|2. |295/2006 |323, 324, 307,|Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| | |504, 506, IPC | | |
|3. |142/1993 |325 IPC |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
|4. |208/91 |342, 323 IPC |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
|5. |231/2008 |447, 353, 504,|Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| | |506, IPC | | |
|6. |571/2011 |2/3 Gangster |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| | |Act | | |
|7. |NCR |504, 506 IPC |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| |No.176/2011 | | | |
|8. |NCR |504, 506 IPC |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| |No.37/2012 | | | |
|9. |Crime Case |Sec.3 U.P. |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur |
| |No.54/12 |Gunda Control | | |
| | |Act | | |

 
That apart, it is the asseveration on behalf of the State of U.P. that
Respondent no.2 has been tampering with evidence by giving threats to
witnesses and that it is palpably evident that in the impugned Order,
the High Court had ignored his criminal antecedents as well as the
specific role assigned against him in the subject complaint.
5. Keeping the above factors in view, primarily the criminal
antecedents of Respondent no.2, we do not think that it is
fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible for the State of U.P. to
contend that Respondent no.2 has violated the terms of his bail by
threatening or intimidating witnesses. Even in the Affidavit dated
27.6.2013 filed by the Circle Officer, City-II, District
Saharanpur, details of as many as ten cases in which Respondent
no.2 is involved have been given.
6. In these circumstances, therefore, it was incorrect and imprudent
for the High Court to grant bail at least till such time as the
examination of the eye witnesses had been completed. The Court
should not lose perspective of the fact that intimidation of
witnesses is a common occurrence at least as regards persons who
have come into conflict with the law on multiple occasions.
Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside and the bail of
Respondent no.2 is cancelled. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled
and the sureties discharged. He shall be taken into custody
forthwith.
7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]
8. Leave granted. The Bail Orders dated 3.11.2011 passed by the High
Court in favour of Rafal Singh, Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @
Awanish have been assailed in this Appeal. Earlier, another Addl.
Sessions Judge, Saharanpur had rejected their applications vide
Orders dated 14.10.2011. The alleged role ascribed to Rafal Singh
is identical in material particulars to that of Kunwar Singh, both
of whom allegedly were armed with Balkatis. As per the Affidavit
dated 27.6.2013 filed on behalf of the State there are as many as
fifteen cases pending against him. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail to the said
Respondent as well. We set aside the Order of the High Court so
far as Rafal Singh is concerned. His bail bonds shall stand
cancelled and the sureties discharged, and he shall be taken into
custody forthwith.
9. So far as Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish are concerned, it
appears that they were not armed with sharp edged weapons but with
lathis/dandas. Of course, it is alleged, so far as Sanjay
(deceased) is concerned, that he had also suffered from multiple
lacerated wounds on the top of his head, for which prima facie
Shashpal and Hanish are responsible. The State has not alleged
pendency of any previous cases against them and it is also not the
prosecution case that these two persons have endeavoured to
intimidate or influence witnesses. For these reasons, so far as
these two Respondents are concerned, the impugned Order is not
interfered with. It is, however, made clear that if they are
found to be intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with
the evidence the bail granted to these respondents shall be liable
to be cancelled. It is further made clear that the observations
made hereinabove will not affect the Trial which should be
conducted on its own merit.
10. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 
………………………………………J.
[T.S. THAKUR]

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………………J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi
October 08, 2013.

 

 

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,901,719 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,870 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com