AMINUDDIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 23-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
AMINUDDIN
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Bail – Grant of, on parity – When not justified – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 352 and 34 – Held: When the bail
granted to co-accused person has been disapproved by Supreme
Court and such grant of bail to co-accused had been the only reason
for which the bail was granted to the respondent no.2, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside– In the said case, the High Court had
proceeded in a rather cursory manner and without regard to the
salient feature of the case at hand, being that of gruesome day-
light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries,
including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around
the neck and the chest – Impugned order equally suffers from the
shortcoming that the relevant features of the case have not at all
been considered by the High Court – Respondent no.2 has been
specifically named in the FIR as one of the assailants and looking
to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the
prosecution case prima facie cannot be dubbed as fanciful or
improbable – Impugned order set aside – Respondent no.2 to
surrender – If he applies for bail afresh after surrendering and at
an appropriate stage, such an application may be considered on its
own merits.
Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019]
14 SCR 529 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 14 SCR 529
referred to
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1669 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20894
of 2020.
271
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 271
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Anilendra Pandey, Wahid Hussain, Nadeem Hussain, Sandeep,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Shashank Shekhar Singh, Bahar U. Barqi, Aftab Ali Khan, D. S.
Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, at whose behest FIR No. 438 of 2019 dated
10.07.2019 came to be registered at Police Station Kasganj, District
Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
352 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, has preferred this appeal by
permission and by special leave, in challenge to the order dated
03.12.2020, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20894 of 2020.
2.1. By order impugned, the High Court has granted the concession
of bail to one of the accused persons (respondent No. 2 herein),
essentially on the consideration that identically placed co-accused persons
had already been granted bail. The appellant has, inter alia, pointed out
that the order granting bail to one of the alleged identically placed co-
accused has been disapproved by this Court in the judgment and order
dated 15.03.2021, as passed in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2021 arising
out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6744 of 2020.
3. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are
as follows: The appellant had lodged the First Information Report on
10.07.2019 at about 09:08 p.m. with the allegations that his son Danish
was attacked with knife and sharp weapons by as many as 7 persons
when he was coming from his house for milking the cattle. It was further
alleged that the victim Danish sustained grievous injuries because of
such assault and died on the spot. Two persons, Nisar and Jalil, were
said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. As many as 8 ante-mortem
injuries were detected on the person of the deceased, most of which had
been either incise wounds or stab wounds on and around the neck and
the chest. One of the accused persons, Imran, was arrested on 11.07.2019.
1 ‘IPC’, for short.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
As per the assertion of the Investigating Officer, the other accused
persons, including the present respondent No. 2, remained absconding
where for, non-bailable warrants and then, even proclamation under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued. The
other accused persons surrendered or were apprehended on different
dates. The respondent No. 2 surrendered on 02.09.2019.
4. The application for bail moved on behalf of the respondent No.
2 was declined by the Sessions Court and then, the first bail application
moved on his behalf in the High Court, being Criminal Misc. Bail
Applicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.