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
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
