ATMARAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

                     [2013] 10 S.C.R. 513


                           ATMARAM                                   A
                                v.
                        STATE OF U.P.
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1678 of 2013)
                       OCTOBER 8, 2013
                                                                     B
        [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

        Bail - Grant of - Validity - Assault with balkati (a sharp
   edged weapon) and /athis - Four victims - All suffered serious
   m1unes           One      died        Case     registered       u/ C
   ss.147, 148, 149,323,325,302 /PC - Respondent no.2 and
   three co-accused denied bail by Sessions Judge - High Court,
t ·however, granted them bail - On appeal, held: Keeping in view
   the criminal antecedents of Respondent no.2, as well as the
   specific role assigned against him, it cannot be said th_at it D
   was fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible for the State to
   contend that Respondent no.2 violated the terms of his bail
   by threatening or intimidating witnesses - It was incorrect and
   imprudent for the High Court to grant him bail at least till such
   time as examination of the eye witnesses had been E
   completed - The Court should not lose perspective of the fact
   that intimidation of witnesses is a common occurrence at least
   as regards persons come into conflict with the law on multiple
   occasions - Accordingly, bail of Respondent no.2 cancelled
   - Alleged role ascribed to one co-accused identical in material F
   particulars to that of Respondent no. 2, both of whom allegedly
   were armed with balkatis - High Court erred in granting bail
   to that co-accused as well - Other two co-accused were not
   armed with sharp edged weapons but with lathis/dandas - The
   State did not allege pendency of any previous cases against G
   them and it was also not the prosecution case that they
   endeavoured to intimidate or influence witnesses - Bail order
   in respect of them accordingly not interfered with.

                               513
                                                                     H
    514      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A      The prosecution case was that pursuant to an
  altercation, Respondent no.2-accused and other accused
  persons armed with a sharp edged weapon (balkati) and
  lathis attacked the appellant, his two sons and grandson
  all of whom suffered serious injuries. One son of appellant
B died. Case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149,
  323, 325, 302 l.P.C. Respondent no.2 and three other
  ac:cused -'R', S' and 'H' were denied bail by the Sessions
  Judge. The High Court, however, granted them bail, by
  the impugned order.
c         Disposing of the instant appeals, the Court

         HELD: 1. 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 the High
D   Court had ignored his criminal antecedents as well as the
    specific role assigned against him in the subject
    complaint. Keeping the above factors in view, primarily
    the criminal antecedents of Respondent no.2, it cannot
    be said that it is fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible
E   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 filed by the State, details
    of as many as ten cases in which Respondent no.2 is
    involved have been given. In these circumstances,
F   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
G   persons who have come into conflict with the law on
    multiple occasions. Accordingly, the bail of Respondent
    no.2 is cancelled. [Para 4-6] [518-D-H]

     2. The alleged role ascribed to 'R' is identical in
  material particulars to that of Respondent no.2, both of
H whom allegedly were armed with Balkatis. As per the
            ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P.                      515


Affidavit filed on behalf of the State there are as many as      A
fifteen cases pending against him. Therefore, the High
Court erred in granting bail to 'R' as well. So far as 'S' and
'H' are concerned, it appears that they were not armed
with sharp edged weapons but with lathis/dandas. The
State has not alleged pendency of any previous cases             B
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 'S' &
'H' are concerned, the impugned Order is not interfered
with. [Paras 8 and 9] [519-C-D, F-G]                             c
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1678 of 2013 etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail     D
Application No. 17466 of 2011.
                              WITH
Crl. A. No. 1679 of 2013.

    Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Vibhor Vardhan,        E
Sanchit, Harsh Vardhan Surana for the Appellant.

    lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Gaurav Abhisth Kumar, P.K. Jain,
Saurabh Jain, P.K. Goswami, S.P. Singh, Haresh Raichura,
Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura for the Respondents.               F

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

Crl.Appeal No. 1678 of 2013                                      G
[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,           H
    516       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A 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, Rafa! Singh, lssam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif
  @ Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the
B site; Kunwar Singh and Rafa! 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,
c 302 1.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
D         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
E 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, l.P.C. P.S.
  Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
F
         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
  Addi. Sessions Judge was obviously influenced by the fact that
G 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
H for murder and another for rape. In the view of the Additional
                 ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P.                        517
                    [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, these were sufficient reasons to           A
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 Addi. Advocate General for
the State of U.P. has similarly pressed before us, that the            8
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                    C
Respondent no.2 has contended that all the cases in which
Respondent no.2 has been named, he has been acquitted in
two and QaS 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        D
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             E
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 :                                                      F

S.No.      Crime No.     Sections        Police Station    District

1.        29/119/2011   Under Sec.       Kotwali Dehat    Saharanpur
                        147, 148, 149,
                        323, 325,                                      G
                        302 IPC
2.      295/2006         323, 324, 307, Kotwali Dehat     Saharanpur
                        504, 506, IPC
3.   • 142/1993         3251PC           Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
4.      208/91          342, 323 IPC     Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur      H
    518     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   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
B         No.176/2011
    8.    NCR            504, 506 IPC    Kotwali Dehat   Saharanpur
          No.37/2012
    9.    Crime Case    Sec.3 U.P.       Kotwali Dehat   Saharanpu
          No.54/12      Gunda Control
                        Act
c
  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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H aside and the bail of Respondent no.2 is cancelled. His bail
               ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P.                       519
                  [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
 bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. He         A
 shall be taken into custody forthwith.

      7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.

 Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2013
                                                                     B
 [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 Rafa! Singh, Shashpal
 and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish have been assailed in this             c
 Appeal. Earlier, another Addi. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur
 had rejected their applications vide Orders dated 14.10.2011.
 The alleged role ascribed to Rafa! 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
                                                                     0
 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 Rafa! Singh
 is concerned. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the
 sureties discharged, and he shall be taken into custody             E
 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,    F
  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        G
  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   H
    520       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 10 S.C.R.

A   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.
B
    B.B.B.                                   Appeals disposed of.