Supreme Court of India
RAMAYAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 323
- Decided
- 19 April 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The High Court erred in granting bail; bail must not be awarded in such serious offences where the accused have a likelihood of influencing witnesses and causing societal disruption.
Summary
The appellant, Ramayan Singh, filed an FIR alleging that Respondent No.2 (Vivek Pal) and co-accused Punit Pal violently assaulted his uncle, resulting in the uncle's death. Both accused were charged under multiple IPC sections, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and were initially denied bail by the trial court. The Allahabad High Court later granted bail to each accused, prompting the appellant to challenge those orders before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the discretionary power under Section 439 of the CrPC, emphasizing that bail must not be granted arbitrarily, especially in serious offences involving potential witness intimidation and societal impact. Applying the parameters laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Mahipal, the Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail given the gravity of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and their influence in the area. Consequently, the bail orders were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the accused were ordered to be taken into custody.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC in granting bail to the accused in a murder case.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence, conduct of the accused, and potential impact on society and witnesses preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
- Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013s. 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323, s. 394, s. 411, s. 427, s. 504, s. 506
- Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
Subjects
Grant of bailExercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPCParameters for granting bail
Judgment
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 686 : 2024 INSC 323
Ramayan Singh
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2024)
19 April 2024
[Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under
Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Discretion to
grant bail ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously, and
injudiciously – Appeal allowed – High Court ought not to have
been granted bail on account of (i) seriousness of the crime;
(ii) conduct of accused persons; and (iii) overall impact of
crime on the society.
Held: Accused persons charged under s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code along with
s. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 – In relation to FIR
lodged by Appellant stating that persons including Respondent No.
2 and a co-accused attacked him, his uncle (the deceased) and
another person – Bail applications of both accused persons rejected
by trial court – Appeals against trial court orders allowed – Bail
granted by High Court – Appellant challenged correctness of High
Court’s orders – Appeal allowed – Grant of bail involves exercise
of discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily,
capriciously; and injudiciously – Bail ought not to have been
granted on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of
accused person(s); and (iii) overall impact of the crime on society
at large as the accused persons had overwhelming influence in
the area. [Paras 15, 19]
Case Law Cited
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [2014] 12 SCR 453 :
(2014) 16 SCC 508; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [2010] 12 SCR 1165 : (2010) 14 SCC 496;
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020)
2 SCC 118 – relied on.
* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 687
Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Grant of bail; Exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC;
Parameters for granting bail.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2168
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2023 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 11828 of 2023
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Devvrat, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Prithvi Pal, Manoj Jain, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv., Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Ajay Singh, Ms. Sneh Suman, Beenu Sharma, Venkat
Narayan, Subodh S. Patil, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal i.e., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 14988 of 2023,
seeks to assail the correctness of a judgment of the Learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”)
dated 24.04.2023 wherein, the High Court allowed Vivek Pal @ Vikki
Pal’s / Respondent No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and accordingly enlarged
Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained
therein (the “Impugned Order”).
3. By an order dated 31.10.2023, a co-accused i.e., Punit Pal was
enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The appeal
688 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
filed by the Appellant against that order has been tagged with the
present appeal vide an order dated 02.01.2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 355
of 2024. Moreover, as the facts and the questions involved in the
present appeal(s) are similar, they have been heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the
“FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant,
on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the
Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”)
and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their
vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i)
Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally
abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the
vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased
out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with
iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him. It was
also alleged that although the Appellant and Rahul i.e., the Driver
attempted to intervene, they were injured by the accused persons.
The accused persons snatched the mobile phones of the Deceased
and the driver; as well as a gold chain belonging to the Deceased
and ran away from the spot of the incident. The Deceased was
initially rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Bankati, however, due
to the serious nature of the injuries he was referred to the District
Hospital, Basti and thereafter to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow where
he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 10.02.2022.
5. On the same day i.e., 10.02.2022, (i) an inquest report of the person
of the Deceased was prepared wherein injuries were recorded on the
head, hand and knee; and (ii) a post-mortem was conducted which
revealed 4 (four) major ante mortem head injuries on the person
of the Deceased. Pertinently, the cause of death was identified as
coma due to ante mortem head injuries.
6. Notably, Respondent No. 2 came to be apprehended in relation to
the FIR on 05.01.2022 and the murder weapon i.e., a bat used in
the assault of the Deceased was also recovered at his instance. On
the other hand, Punit Pal came to be apprehended on 07.01.2022.
A chargesheet came to be filed in relation to the FIR on 14.03.2022
under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411,
302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (“IPC”) read with
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (the “Act”) (the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 689
Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
“Chargesheet”). Pursuant to the filing of the Chargesheet, committal
proceedings ensued and thereafter charges were framed against the
accused person(s) vide an order dated 19.04.2023.
7. Respondent No. 2 preferred an application seeking the grant of bail
in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR before the
Learned Sessions Judge, Basti (the “Trial Court”). Vide an order
dated 15.03.2022, the aforesaid bail application came to be rejected
by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed an application
seeking the grant of bail which came to be allowed by the High Court
vide the Impugned Order.
8. On the other hand, Punit Pal preferred an application seeking the
grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR
before the Trial Cour. Vide an order dated 29.03.2022, the aforesaid
bail application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter,
Punit Pal filed an application seeking the grant of bail which came
to be allowed by the High Court vide an order dated 31.10.2023.
9. The Appellant herein i.e., the Original Complainant filed the present
appeals assailing the correctness of the order(s) passed by the High
Court enlarging (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal on bail in
relation to the FIR.
10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, urged
the following:
(a) The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction to
grant Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal bail in light of the fact
that (i) charges had been framed against the accused person(s);
(ii) recovery of the weapon used in the assault of the Deceased
has been effected from Respondent No. 2; (iii) well-reasoned
order(s)had been passed by the Trial Court declining the grant
of bail to Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal;
(b) That there is a real and probable threat qua the ability to
influence witnesses in light of the overwhelming influence
exercised in the area by the accused person(s) including inter
alia Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal i.e., after the incident all
shops near the place of occurrence remained shut for a period
of 10 (ten) days; and
(c) That Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal have misused their
liberty i.e., an identified witness had previously sought police
690 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
protection from the Trial Court on account of threats having
been extended to him during the pendency of the trial; and it
was specifically contended that threats were extended to the
Appellant himself by to Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal.
11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State
of Uttar Pradesh supported the stand of the Appellant. Moreover, it
was brought to our attention that both Respondent No. 2; and Punit
Pal were also being prosecuted under the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal has
vehemently contended as under:
(a) That Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal have been cooperating
with the trial, however, the Appellant has stalled proceedings
before the Trial Court; and
(b) That the allegation levelled against Respondent No. 2; and Punit
Pal vis-à-vis extension of threats to the Appellant was wholly
erroneous and is in fact, a part of a calculated effort to paint
Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal in bad light; and
13. We have heard the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the materials on record.
14. The fulcrum of the dispute before this Court is whether the High
Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of
the CrPC to grant Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation
to the proceeding(s) emanating out of the FIR?
15. It is well settled that the grant of bail involves the exercise of a
discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously;
and injudiciously.1 In the aforesaid prism we must assess the
correctness of the order(s) of the High Court granting Respondent
No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating
out of the FIR.
16. This Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496, enunciated certain parameters on which the correctness of
1 Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [2014] 12 SCR 453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 691
Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
an order granting bail must be evaluated. The relevant paragraph(s)
are reproduced as under:
“9. …It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM
No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by
the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly
in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well
settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.
***
10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to
these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail,
the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application
of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”
17. Furthermore, this Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2
SCC 118, followed Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (Supra) and succinctly
summarised the position qua interference by this Court vis-à-vis an
order granting bail. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:
692 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail
touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this
reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an
order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the
discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised
without the due application of mind or in contravention of
the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail
is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor,
amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused
had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the
offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the
proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the
course of justice. The provision for being released on bail
draws an appropriate balance between public interest in
the administration of justice and the protection of individual
liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant
of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and
in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court.
It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous
factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power
to grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in this
determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it
appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause
to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is
not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail
the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding.”
18. Turning to the issue at hand, we note that Respondent No. 2; and
Punit Pal have been charged under inter alia Section(s) 147, 148,
149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B IPC on the basis
of the materials on record including but not limited to the post-
mortem report; and statements of witnesses. Furthermore, on 2 (two)
occasions there have been allegations levelled against Respondent
No. 2; and Punit Pal alleging inter alia that the accused persons have
attempted to intimidate the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant
and another identified witnesses in an effort to de-rail the trial in the
present case.
19. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought not
to have granted Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation
to the proceedings emanating from the FIR on account of (i) the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 693
Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s);
and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large i.e., the
accused person(s) were involved in a broad day-light murder which
led to the closure of a market for a prolonged period of 10 (ten) days
due to their overwhelming influence in the area.
20. In the aforementioned context, the impugned orders dated 24.04.2023
and 31.10.2023 granting bail to accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and
Punit Pal, respectively, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly,
set aside.
21. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bond(s) of
accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal shall stand cancelled.
The aforenoted person(s) shall be taken into custody forthwith. A copy
of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court and PS Lalganj,
Basti, Uttar Pradesh for onward action and necessary compliance. The
Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
22. It is clarified that any observations made in this judgment shall not be
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at trial.
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor Appeals allowed.
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Grant of bail"Sign in to search