AMINUDDINversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

264                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 264                [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                                AMINUDDIN
                                        v.
               STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021)
B                                March 15, 2021
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                         M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Constitution of India: Arts. 136, 21 – Invocation of jurisdiction
      under – In a matter involving serious offence of murder, grant of
C
      bail by High Court – On appeal, held: Undoubtedly, the protection
      of personal liberty u/Art. 21 is a constitutional value which has to
      be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts – Equally,
      in a matter involving serious offence of murder, the liberty of the
      accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in
D     the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a
      person who is accused of a crime is held to account – High Court
      failed to notice relevant considerations and the settled principles
      while granting bail – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside –
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438.
E           Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: There can be no manner of doubt that the protection
      of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
      is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High
      Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the
F     present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the
      liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the
      public interest in the administration of criminal justice system
      which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to
      account. Having regard to the settled principles which govern
      the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a case
G     such as the present, the order of the High Court does not clearly
      pass muster. In granting bail, the High Court failed to notice
      relevant considerations which ought to have been, but have not
      been taken into account. Thus, the impugned judgment and order
      of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 8, 9][268-A-D]
H
                                       264
   AMINUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER                           265


      Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 – referred                    A
      to.
                          Case Law Reference
       (2020) 2 SCC 118          Referred to               Para 7
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                        B
No.317 of 2021
       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6083 of
2020.
      Anilendra Pandey, Wahid Hussain, Ms. Suchita Dixit, Ms. Priya          C
Kashyap, Madhusudan, Sandeep, Ashwani Kumar, Advs. for the Appel-
lant.
     Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Maniya Hasija, Shashank Shekhar Singh,
Anand Dilip Landge, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                             D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution, the informant at whose behest FIR No 438 of 2019 was           E
registered on 10 July 2019 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj,
U.P., has moved this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 25 February 2020 granting bail to the second respondent.
        3. Briefly stated, the First Information Report was registered at
the behest of the appellant who is the father of the deceased. The FIR       F
states that on 10 July 2019 at about 5.15 pm, the son of the appellant was
proceeding for the purpose of milking the cattle, at which stage, seven
persons residing on the same street attacked him with knives, as a result
of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. A postmor-
tem report was conducted at 1 am on 11 July 2019. As many as eight           G
ante mortem injuries were detected. The statement of the appellant was
recorded on 11 July 2019. After the arrest of one of the accused, Imran,
on 11 July 2019, the Investigating Officer is stated to have made efforts
between 12 and 27 July 2019 to apprehend the other accused, but the
remaining accused were absconding. On 30 July 2019, a non-bailable
                                                                             H
266             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     warrant was issued. On 2 August 2019, a proclamation was issued under
      Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Among the other
      accused, the second respondent surrendered before the court on 29 Au-
      gust 2019. On 31 October 2019, the application for bail moved on behalf
      of the second respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kasganj.
      The learned Sessions Judge observed thus:
B
             “The applicant is nominated in the FIR. There is direct charge of
             the murder of the son of the applicant with knives. In the Post
             Mortem Report the cause of death of the deceased is due to Anti-
             Mortem injuries and shocked. There are 8 injuries mentioned in
             the Post Mortem Report. Hence in my opinion in view of the en-
C            tire facts, heinous crime offence, and circumstances, the accused
             is not liable to be released on bail. Hence the bail application has
             been got dismissed.”
             4. Thereafter, the High Court was moved in Criminal Miscella-
      neous Bail Application No 6083 of 2020. The High Court by its order
D     dated 25 February 2020 directed that the second respondent be enlarged
      on bail.
             5. Mr Anilendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
      the appellant submits that the only reason why the High Court was per-
      suaded to grant bail was “the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Consti-
      tution of India”. It has been submitted that the High Court has not indi-
E
      cated any other reason and has completely ignored the seriousness of
      the offence, the nature of the injuries and the involvement, prima facie,
      of the accused, who are residing in the same locality who are named in
      the FIR.
             6. Pursuant to the notice that was issued by this Court on 18 De-
F     cember 2020, the State of U.P. has entered appearance through Ms
      Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed. The
      State has supported the contention of the appellant. On 19 February
      2021, after service was completed, time was granted both to the State as
      well as to the counsel for the second respondent to file a counter affida-
      vit. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the State of UP, no
G
      counter has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. A letter has
      been circulated on behalf of the second respondent seeking a further
      adjournment. However, having due regard to the fact that the appellant
      seeks to challenge an order of the High Court granting bail to the second
      respondent in a serious offence involving the murder of the son of the
H     appellant, we see no reason to grant any further adjournment having
      AMINUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER                         267
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

regard to the fact that sufficient time has already been granted on 19        A
February 2021.
       7. The circumstances would indicate that a brutal murder has been
committed of the son of the appellant. The postmortem report would
indicate as many as eight ante mortem injuries. The offence is alleged to
have taken place in broad day light. The First Information Report being       B
Case Crime No 438 of 2019 was registered at about 2108 hours, within
a period of four hours of the incident which is alleged to have taken place
at 1715 hours on the same day. After the investigation was completed,
the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent court under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In several judg-
ments of this Court, the need for the High Court to adduce reasons while      C
granting bail has been underscored. At this stage, we may advert to the
recent decision in Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar1, which was relied on by
Ms Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel for the State of UP. Speaking for a
two-Judge Bench, one of us (Justice D Y Chandrachud, J) observed:
       “25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the          D
       facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the pur-
       pose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of
       open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that fac-
       tors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection
       or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice
       is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but    E
       should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty
       of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this com-
       mitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of
       individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the inter-
       ests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who com-
                                                                              F
       mit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.
       Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have
       arrived at a conclusion.
       27. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the
       reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the
       non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this     G
       Court.”
      8. In the present case, the High Court has merely observed that
bail was being granted after considering the submissions and having re-

1
    (2020) 2 SCC 118                                                          H
268                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     gard to the “larger mandate of Article 21”. There can be no manner of
      doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a consti-
      tutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by
      all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious of-
      fence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be
      necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of crimi-
B
      nal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a
      crime is held to account. Having regard to the settled principles which
      govern the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a case
      such as the present, we are of the view that the order of the High Court
      does not clearly pass muster. No case for the grant of bail is made out. In
C     granting bail, the High Court has failed to notice relevant considerations
      which ought to have been, but have not been taken into account.
             9. In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside
      the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 25 February
      2020. As a consequence of this order, the second respondent shall surren-
D     der forthwith.
              10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                      Appeal allowed.

E




F




G




H