ANIL KUMAR TULSIYANI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 923 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l· 
ANIL KUMAR TULSIYANI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
MAY 5, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Bail-Grant of-Propriety-Non-bailable offence-Accused an influential 
person-Grant of bail by High Court-Held: Grant of bail was not justified-
The same was granted without considering the gravity and· nature of the c 
offence-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 439-Penal Code, 1860-
s.302 rlw s.201 
The respondent-accused was charged under S.302 r/w s.201 IPC. His 
wife was co-accused. Respondent was an Advocate. His bail application 
was rejected by Sessions Court. However, it was later granted by the High D 
Court. Hence the present appeal. Respondent-accused interalia contended 
that the petition out of which the present appeal arose, was not 
maintainable as the same was not filed by the aggrieved party. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that the petition itself is not maintainable, 
as the same is not filed by an aggrieved party as permission to file Special 
Leave Petition has already been granted. [924-G-H) 
2.1. The circumstances to be considered in an application for bail F 
are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe 
that the accused had committed the offence; (iii) severity of the punishment 
in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, 
if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing 
of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) 
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) G 
danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. [926-B-q 
2.2. One of the considerations in granting bail in non-bailable 
' 
offences is the gravity and the nature of the offence. There are no 
923 
H 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SlJl'P. I S.C.R. 
A mitigating circumstances, which warranted the High Court in granting 
bail in a non-bailable grave offence under Section 3021201 IPC. The High 
Court has not at all considered the gravity and the nature of the offence 
in which the deceased stated to be a close friend of the respondent-accused 
has been shot at in his house, that too inside his bedroom. Primaf:.icie, the 
prosecution story has disclosed that a heavy burden is laid on the accused 
B to explain the circumstances. (925-D-FJ 
State of UP. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005( 8 SCC 21, relied on. 
2.3. In the present case, the respondent being an Advocate, is in a 
C commanding position and standing in the society. Keeping in view his 
position in the background, a reasonable apprehension of the witnesses 
being tampered with or won over, coerced, threatened or intimidated by 
using his influence and position cannot be ruled out. (926-D( 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 529 
D of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.2005 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11884/2005. 
Ranjit Kumar, Siddharth Dave and Vibha Datta Makhija for the 
E Appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
Vijay Hansaria, C.D. Singh, Prashant Chaudhary, Abhishek Chaudhary 
and Praveen Swarup for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.K. SEMA, J. Leave granted. 
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by 
the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 
No.11884 of 2005 granting bail to the second respondent-accused. 
We may at this stage, dispose of one of the arguments of Mr. Vijay 
Hansaria, learned senior counsel, for the second respondent-accused that the 
petition itself is not maintainable, as the same is not filed by an aggrieved 
party. This contention does not survive as by our order dated 30.9.2005 
permission to file Special Leave Petition has already been granted. 
·J 
ANIL KUMAR TULSIYANI v. STATE OF U.P. (H.K. SEMA, J.] 
925 
Learned senior counsel on both sides have advanced arguments touching A 
l..1 
the merits of the case. We, however, refrain ourselves from making any 
observation on the merits of the case at this stage lest it may prejudice the 
case of the accused, as the trial is yet to commence. Suffice it is to say the 
High Court was not justified in admitting bail to the respondent. 
The offence under which the respondent was charged is Section 302 B 
read with 20 I !PC in which the husband was the main accused and the wife 
was the co-accused. 
Co-accused's application was rejected by the High Court on 3.6.2005 
after a t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.