advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Bail - When the main accused is reason for entire panic - is not entitled for bail simply because no bullet from his weapon - hit the deceased - Bail granted by single judge High court set aside = Sita Ram …..Appellant Versus Balbir @ Bali & Anr. …..Respondents - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40899

Appeal by informant of FIR for cancellation of Bail - When the main accused is reason for entire panic - is not entitled for bail simply because no bullet from his weapon - hit the deceased - Bail granted by single judge High court set aside =

It  is  true
        that the FSL Report does not indicate that Vishnu was killed  by  a
        revolver shot, allegedly possessed and fired  by  Balbir/Respondent
        no.1; 
but more likely from a  .315  bore  standard  rifle,  as  was
        possessed by Sombir.  
However, it is also alleged that Sombir fired
        on the instigation, instance and  indication  of  Respondent  no.1.
        
Moreover, the leading role of Respondent  no.1  is  not  incredible
        only because an injury from a revolver has not been reported as  he
        could have fired therefrom and missed Vishnu.
This incident had caused public panic in the area,  as  is  evident from contemporary newspaper and journalistic  reports.   Respondent
        no.1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area,  at  the
        time of the incident he was an ex-MLA.   
Section  109  and  Section
        149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited.  By  Orders  dated
        23.1.2013, the Addl. Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police
        report and material documents, found existence  of  a  prima  facie
        case under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307  read  with
        Section 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the  accused
        and in addition to this a prima facie case under Section  302  IPC,
        109 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @  Bali,  a  prima  facie
        case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima  facie
        case under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala  and  Sunil
        and a prima facie case under Section 27 of Arms Act.
     6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale
        injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie
        case of the involvement of  the  Respondent  no.1  in  the  alleged
        crimes.  
Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent no.1 are such that
        a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or
        leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. 
 The  severity  of
        the attack should not be overlooked.  For these  manifold  reasons,
        we set aside the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow  the  Appeal
        and cancel the bail granted to Respondent no.1 who shall  surrender
        to custody forthwith.
     7. Nothing stated above should however influence  the  Sessions  Judge
        and the trial of the case shall be conducted on its own merits.


                                                                 REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      1834             OF 2013
                [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2525 of 2013]




      Sita Ram                                          …..Appellant


            Versus


      Balbir @ Bali & Anr.                              …..Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T


      VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.


     1. Leave granted.
     2. The Appellant,
who is the informant in FIR No.141 dated 6.5.2011 at
        Police Station, Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for offences  punishable
        under Sections 109, 114, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 325 IPC  read  with
        Section 149 IPC and  Section  25  of  the  Arms  Act,  assails  the
        impugned Order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
        Haryana granting bail to Respondent no.1, namely,  Balbir  @  Bali.
       
The learned Single Judge has been impressed by the  fact  that  the
        injuries   on    deceased    Vishnu    (Brother-in-law    of    the
        Appellant/Informant), as mentioned in the  FSL  Report,   had  been
        caused by a high speed bullet projectile fired most probably from a
        .315 bore standard rifle which, according to  the  version  in  the
        FIR, was not the weapon carried  by  Balbir/Respondent  no.1.  
The
        learned Judge has also noted that the six witnesses examined  under
        Section  161,  Cr.P.C.  have  not  specifically  stated  that   the
        Respondent no.1 was holding a firearm.  
However, what emerges  from
        their   statements   is   that   on   an   indication   given    by
        Balbir/Respondent no.1, Vishnu was fatally fired upon.  
The  factum
        of Respondent no.1 having been incarcerated at that  time  for  one
        year and seven and a half months also appears to  have  weighed  on
        the learned Single Judge.
     3. On the contrary,
the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, by  Order  dated
        22.3.2012   had   dismissed   the   Bail   Application   filed   by
        Balbir/Respondent no.1. 
 He had noted that the alleged sequence  of
        events inter alia  were that
when a donation had been demanded from
        the Appellant he had agreed  to  match  the  amount  given  by  his
        neighbour in the Anaj Mandi, where this entire  incident  occurred.
       
The persons demanding the donation, however, stated that Respondent
        no.1  had  instructed  them  to  collect   Rs.50,000/-   from   the
        Informant/Appellant and on being so told, 
 the  latter  had  stated
        that Respondent no.1 owed him Rs.5,00,000/- out of which they could
        deduct  Rs.2,50,000/-  as  his  donation  provided  the   remaining
        Rs.2,50,000/- was returned to  him.   
On  this  conversation  being
        reported back to Respondent no.1, he arrived at approximately  5.00
        p.m. at the Anaj Mandi  and  accosted  the  Appellant/Informant  by
        verbal abuses as well as by fist blows.  
Appellant  ran  away  from
        the spot and immediately lodged a police report.  Nevertheless,  at
        7:00 p.m., Respondent no.1 along with 30-35 supporters  armed  with
        weapons again came to the shop of the  Appellant  and  administered
        lathi blows and also opened fire, leading to  injuries  to  several
        persons and a fatal injury to Vishnu.
     4. We have perused the FIR and are satisfied  that  the  narration  of
        events of the Additional Sessions Judge is consistent thereto.  
The
        Appellant/Informant has mentioned the names of Respondent  no.1  as
        also Rajesh, Pawan, Kala,  Salad,  Mukesh,  Kuldip  Singh,  Satbir,
        Sombir, Naresh, Rishi and his brothers, Bindu, Hansi, Dharam, Ajit,
        Leela, Raja and Rajbir and the fact that  all  these  persons  were
        armed with weapons.
 In the FIR, the Appellant/Informant has stated
        that Respondent no.1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from  his
        revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu.   
The  other
        persons mentioned also  opened  fire  indiscriminately  leading  to
        firearm injuries on several persons who were at  the  shop  of  the
        Appellant/Informant at that  fateful  time.  
 Injuries  caused  by
        blunt weapons (the FIR speaks of Respondent  no.1  and  party  also
        possessing lathis) find mention in the MLC  Reports.   
It  is  true
        that the FSL Report does not indicate that Vishnu was killed  by  a
        revolver shot, allegedly possessed and fired  by  Balbir/Respondent
        no.1; 
but more likely from a  .315  bore  standard  rifle,  as  was
        possessed by Sombir.  
However, it is also alleged that Sombir fired
        on the instigation, instance and  indication  of  Respondent  no.1.
       
Moreover, the leading role of Respondent  no.1  is  not  incredible
        only because an injury from a revolver has not been reported as  he
        could have fired therefrom and missed Vishnu.
     5. This incident had caused public panic in the area,  as  is  evident from contemporary newspaper and journalistic  reports.   Respondent
        no.1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area,  at  the
        time of the incident he was an ex-MLA.  
Section  109  and  Section
        149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited.  By  Orders  dated
        23.1.2013, the Addl. Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police
        report and material documents, found existence  of  a  prima  facie
        case under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307  read  with
        Section 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the  accused
        and in addition to this a prima facie case under Section  302  IPC,
        109 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @  Bali,  a  prima  facie
        case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima  facie
        case under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala  and  Sunil
        and a prima facie case under Section 27 of Arms Act.
     6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale
        injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie
        case of the involvement of  the  Respondent  no.1  in  the  alleged
        crimes.
Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent no.1 are such that
        a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or
        leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. 
 The  severity  of
        the attack should not be overlooked.  For these  manifold  reasons,
        we set aside the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow  the  Appeal
        and cancel the bail granted to Respondent no.1 who shall  surrender
        to custody forthwith.
     7. Nothing stated above should however influence  the  Sessions  Judge
        and the trial of the case shall be conducted on its own merits.





      .......................................................J.
                                        [T.S. THAKUR]





      .......................................................J.
                                        [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
      New Delhi
      October 24, 2013.
-----------------------
5


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.