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

Saturday, October 12, 2013

No bail when there is a history of involvement of number of crimes and when there is possibility of tampering of witnesses = ATAMARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40881

     Grounds for cancellation of Bail :- 
 1. Kunwar  Singh
        was involved in a number of cases including four shown  pending  in
        the Gang Chart including one for murder and another for  rape. 
2. 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.

3. In these circumstances, 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  persons  who
        have come  into  conflict  with  the  law  on  multiple  occasions.
        Accordingly, the impugned Order  is  set  aside  and  the  bail  of
        Respondent no.2 is cancelled.  His bail bonds shall stand cancelled
        and the sureties  discharged.   He  shall  be  taken  into  custody
        forthwith.
Grounds confirming bail orders in respect of other accused :-
1.The  State  has  not  alleged
        pendency of any previous cases against them  
2. it is also not  the
        prosecution  case  that  these  two  persons  have  endeavoured  to
        intimidate or influence witnesses.  
3. For these reasons,  so  far  as
        these two Respondents are concerned,  the  impugned  Order  is  not
        interfered with.   
4. It is, however, made  clear  that  if  they  are
        found to be intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with
        the evidence the bail granted to these respondents shall be  liable
        to be cancelled.

                                                             REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1678    OF 2013
                [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]




      Atmaram                                           …..Appellant


            Versus


      State of U.P. & Anr.                              …..Respondents


                                   W I T H


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1679   OF 2013
                [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]


      Atmaram                                           …..Appellant


            Versus


      State of U.P. & Ors.                              …..Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T




      VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.


      Crl.Appeal No. 1678  of 2013
      [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,  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, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif  @
      Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site;  Kunwar
      Singh and Rafal 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, 302 I.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  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 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,
      I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
     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 Addl. Sessions  Judge  was
        obviously influenced by the fact that 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 for murder and another for  rape.   
In
        the view of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur,  these  were
        sufficient reasons to 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 Addl. Advocate General for the State of U.P.
        has similarly pressed before us, that the 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 Respondent no.2  has  contended  that  all  the
        cases in  which  Respondent  no.2  has  been  named,  he  has  been
        acquitted in two and has 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  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 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 :


   |S.No. |Crime No.    |Sections      |Police Station|District     |
|1.    |29/119/2011  |Under Sec.147,|Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|      |             |148, 149, 323,|              |             |
|      |             |325, 302 IPC  |              |             |
|2.    |295/2006     |323, 324, 307,|Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|      |             |504, 506, IPC |              |             |
|3.    |142/1993     |325 IPC       |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|4.    |208/91       |342, 323 IPC  |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|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   |
|      |No.176/2011  |              |              |             |
|8.    |NCR          |504, 506 IPC  |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|      |No.37/2012   |              |              |             |
|9.    |Crime Case   |Sec.3 U.P.    |Kotwali Dehat |Saharanpur   |
|      |No.54/12     |Gunda Control |              |             |
|      |             |Act           |              |             |


      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 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
        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  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  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  aside  and  the  bail  of
        Respondent no.2 is cancelled.  His bail bonds shall stand cancelled
        and the sureties  discharged.   He  shall  be  taken  into  custody
        forthwith.
     7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
      Criminal Appeal No. 1679   of 2013
      [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 Rafal Singh,  Shashpal  and  Hanish  @  Hanif  @
        Awanish have been assailed in this  Appeal.  Earlier, another Addl.
        Sessions Judge, Saharanpur had  rejected  their  applications  vide
        Orders dated 14.10.2011.  The alleged role ascribed to Rafal  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 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 Rafal Singh  is  concerned.   His  bail  bonds  shall  stand
        cancelled and the sureties discharged, and he shall be  taken  into
        custody 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,  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  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 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.


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





      .............................................J.
                                             [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
      New Delhi
      October 08, 2013.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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