AMINUDDIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 15-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
AMINUDDIN
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021)
March 15, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts. 136, 21 – Invocation of jurisdiction
under – In a matter involving serious offence of murder, grant of
bail by High Court – On appeal, held: Undoubtedly, the protection
of personal liberty u/Art. 21 is a constitutional value which has to
be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts – Equally,
in a matter involving serious offence of murder, the liberty of the
accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in
the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a
person who is accused of a crime is held to account –  High Court
failed to notice relevant considerations and the settled principles
while granting bail – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: There can be no manner of doubt that the protection
of personal liberty under  Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High
Court, as indeed by all courts. Equally, in a matter such as the
present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the
liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the
public interest in the administration of criminal justice system
which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to
account. Having regard to the settled principles which govern
the grant of bail in a matter involving a serious offence in a case
such as the present, the order of the High Court does not clearly
pass muster. In granting bail, the High Court failed to notice
relevant considerations which ought to have been, but have not
been taken into account. Thus, the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 8, 9][268-A-D]
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 264
264
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
265
Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 2 SCC 118
Referred to
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.317 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6083 of
2020.
Anilendra Pandey, Wahid Hussain, Ms. Suchita Dixit, Ms. Priya
Kashyap, Madhusudan, Sandeep, Ashwani Kumar, Advs. for the Appel-
lant.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Maniya Hasija, Shashank Shekhar Singh,
Anand Dilip Landge, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution, the informant at whose behest FIR No 438 of 2019 was
registered on 10 July 2019 at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj,
U.P., has moved this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 25 February 2020 granting bail to the second respondent.
3. Briefly stated, the First Information Report was registered at
the behest of the appellant who is the father of the deceased. The FIR
states that on 10 July 2019 at about 5.15 pm, the son of the appellant was
proceeding for the purpose of milking the cattle, at which stage, seven
persons residing on the same street attacked him with knives, as a result
of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. A postmor-
tem report was conducted at 1 am on 11 July 2019. As many as eight
ante mortem injuries were detected. The statement of the appellant was
recorded on 11 July 2019. After the arrest of one of the accused, Imran,
on 11 July 2019, the Investigating Officer is stated to have made efforts
between 12 and 27 July 2019 to apprehend the other accused, but the
remaining accused were absconding. On 30 July 2019, a non-bailable
AMINUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
warrant was issued. On 2 August 2019, a proclamation was issued under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Among the other
accused, the second respondent surrendered before the court on 29 Au-
gust 2019. On 31 October 2019, the application for bail moved on behalf
of the second respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kasganj.
The learned Sessions Judge observed thus:
“The applicant is nominated in the FIR. There is direct charge of
the murder of the son of the applicant with knives. In the Post
Morte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.