RAVINDRA PAL SINGHversusAJIT SINGH & ANR

                       [2011] 3 S.C.R 946

A                    RAVINDRA PAL SINGH
                                 v.
                        AJIT SINGH & ANR
                (Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2011)
                        MARCH 17, 2011
B
     {B. SUNDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
                    NIJJAR, JJ .]

       Bail - Complainant's son allegedly shot down by the
C police - CBI after investigation of the matter submitted charge
  sheet against the accused police officials - Bail application
  - Rejected by the Sessions Judge -High Court, however,
  granted bail - On appeal, held: The a/legations made against
  the accused-po/ice officials cannot be brushed aside at this
D stage - CBI has already submitted charge-sheet - High Court
  ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature of
  the a/legations, the possibilities of undue influence being
  exerted on the prosecution witnesses at the instance of the
  police officials - High Court committed serious error in
E granting bail to the accused-po/ice officials - Penal Code,
  1860 - ss. 302, 364, 201 and 120B.
      The appellant filed a case against the police
  personnel under Section 1208, 364, 302, 201 IPC. It is the
F case of the appellant that his son was illegally picked up
  by the Dehradun Police and killed in cold blood.
  According to the post mortem report, a total of 29 bullets
  were fired at the deceased, 17 of these bullets hit the
  deceased at a very close range and 9 bullets were fired
  from a maximum distance of 3 feet. The investigation of
G the case was handed over to the CBI.
      The first respondent along with other 4 accused
  police officers filed bail application in the Court of
  Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge rejected the bail
H                            946
     RAVINDRA PAL SINGH v. AJIT SINGH & ANR.               947


 application. The respondents thereafter moved the                A
 application for bail in the High Court. The High Court
 granted bail to the accused.

      In the instant appeals, the appellant has challenged
 the orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the
                                                           8
 respondents. The appellant submitted that the High Court
 has bee!"' nverly influenced by the fact that the CBI was
 not rt..!Jresented at the time when the bail application
 came up for hearing. According to the appellant,
 presence or absence of the counsel for the CBI was
 wholly irrelevant for examining the merits of the C
 application for bail. He submitted that all the accused
 being police officials, the complainant and other.
 witnesses are always under constant threat and there is
 prima facie involvement of all the accused in a case of
 false encounter.                                          D
      Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD:1. The allegations made against the
  respondents cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The          E
  CBI after investigation of the matter has already submitted      /
  the charge sheet. According to the prosecution all the
  accused were involved in the fake encounter in which an
  innocent young man lost his life. The High court also
· ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature
· of the· allegations, the possibilities of undue influence       F
  being exerted on the witnesses for the prosecution at the
  instance of the police officials. The High Court committed
  serious error in granting bail to the respondents. [Para
  10] [950-E-F]
                                                                  G
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
 No. 748 of 2011.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2010 of the High
 Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Application No. 70 of   H
 2010.
    948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R. .


A                               WITH
    Criminal Appeal Nos, 754, 752, 749, 753, 750, 751 of 2011.

          AT. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.

B        Gopal Subramanium, S.G. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Brijender
    Chahar, Sushil Kumar, Rajat Khattry, Subramanium Prasad,
    Vinay Arora, Aditya Kumar, Vivek Kochar, S.S. Rawat, Sanjay
    Jain, Shweta Verma and Aman Ahuwalia (for Arvind Kumar
    Sharma) for the Respondents.
c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. In all the appeals, the original complainant has
o challenged the separate orders passed by the High Court of
  Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Application No.70 of 2010 in
  SLP(Crl.)No.3520 of 2010, Bail Application No.73 of 2010 in
  SLP(Crl.)No.3573 of 2010 Bail Application No.75 of 2010 in
  SLP(Crl.)No.3527 of 2010, Bail Application No. 46 of 2010 in
E SLP(Crl)No.3521 of 2010, Bail Application No. 72 of 2010 in
  SLP(Crl)No.3529 of 2010, Bail Application No. 45 of 2010 in
  SLP(Crl)No.3522 of 2010, Bail Application No. 74 of ~010 in
  SLP(Crl)No.3523 of 2010 granted bail to the respondents ·
  herein.
F       3. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased Ranbir
  Singh was a MBA student. On 2nd of July, 2009, he had gone
  to Dehradun in search of a job. On 3rd of July, 2009, he was
  ille1lally picked up by the Dehradun Police. At around 3.30 on
  the same day, he was killed in cold blood by the accused police
G officials. According to the post mortem report, the police
  officials fired a total of 29 bullets at the deceased, 17 of these
  bullets hit the deceased at a very close range and 9 bullets
  were fired from a maximum distance of 3 feet.

H         4. On receiving information from some media persons that
      RAVINDRA PAL SINGH v. AJITSINGH & ANR.                   949
            [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
 his son had been shot down by the police at Dehradun, the             A
 complainant reached Dehradun and tried to contact the police
 officials. He was, however, threatened by one of the police
 officer that if he tries to interfere in the matter, he would also
 be eliminated like his son.
       5. In the appeal, the appellant has given details of the        B
  prosecution version which are not necessary for us to
. recapitulate at this stage. After performing the last rites of his
  son, the complainant went back to Dehradun and filed a case
  against the police personnel which was recorded as FIR
  No.101/2009 dated 6.7.2009 under Section 120B, 364, 302,             C
  201 IPC. On 30th July, 2009, for obvious reasons, the
  investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI, SCB,
  Lucknow.
      6. The first respondent herein along with other 4 accused        o
 police officers filed bail application No.991/2009 in the Court
 of Sessions Judge, 4th FTC Dehradun for bail.
       7. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10.12.2009
 rejected the bail application. The respondent herein thereafter       E
 moved the application for bail in the High Court. A vacation
 Judge of the High Court by order dated 20th January, 2001
 granted bail to the accused. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders,
 the complainant, father of the deceased, has moved the
 petitions by special leave.
                                                                       F
      8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
       9. Mr.Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General
 submitted that the High Court committed an error in granting
 bail without any justification. Learned counsel appearing for the     G
 appellant emphasised the seriousness of the offences
 committed. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant
 submitted that the High Court has been overly influenced by the
 fact that the CBI was not represented at the time when the bail
 application came up for hearing. According to the complainant,        H
    950      SUPREME. COURT REPORTS               [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A presence or absence of the counsel for the CBI was wholly
  irrelevant for examining the merits of the application for bail.
  He submitted that all the accused being police. officials, the
  complainant and other witnesses are always under constant
  threat. There is prima facie involvement of all the accused in a
B case of false encounter. According to the prosecution, not only
  an innocent person has been eliminated but efforts have been
  made by all concerned to cover up the crime. The High Court
  merely noticed the submissions made by the counsel for the
  accused and arbitrarily granted bail. Mr.Sushi! Kumar, learned
C counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there
  is no danger to either the complainant or any of the witnesses,
  as all the police officials have now been posted out of the
  district. Learned counsel further submitted that a perusal of the
  orders passed in the case of some of the accused would show
  that the bail applications were contested and vehemently
D opposed by the CBI.

       10. We have considered the submissions made by the
  learned counsel. We are of the considered opinion that the
  allegations made against the respondents cannot be brushed
E aside at this stage. The CBI after investigation of the matter
  has already submitted the charge sheet. According to the
  prosecution all the accused were involved in the fake encounter
  in which an innocent young man lost his life. The High Court
  also ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature
F of the allegations, the possibilities of undue influence being
  exerted on the witnesses for the prosecution at the instance of
  the police officials. In our opinion, the High Court committed
  serious error in granting bail to the respondents.
      11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these
G cases, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned
  orders of the High Court.
    B.B.B.                                      Appeals allowed.

H