ATMARAM versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 08-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 513 
ATMARAM 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1678 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 8, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Bail - Grant of - Validity - Assault with balkati (a sharp 
edged weapon) and /athis - Four victims - All suffered serious 
A 
B 
m1unes 
One 
died 
Case 
registered 
u/ C 
ss.147, 148, 149,323,325,302 /PC - Respondent no.2 and 
three co-accused denied bail by Sessions Judge - High Court, 
t ·however, granted them bail - On appeal, held: Keeping in view 
the criminal antecedents of Respondent no.2, as well as the 
specific role assigned against him, it cannot be said th_at it D 
was fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible for the State to 
contend that Respondent no.2 violated the terms of his bail 
by threatening or intimidating witnesses - It was incorrect and 
imprudent for the High Court to grant him bail at least till such 
time as examination of the eye witnesses had been 
E 
completed - The Court should not lose perspective of the fact 
that intimidation of witnesses is a common occurrence at least 
as regards persons come into conflict with the law on multiple 
occasions - Accordingly, bail of Respondent no.2 cancelled 
- Alleged role ascribed to one co-accused identical in material 
F 
particulars to that of Respondent no. 2, both of whom allegedly 
were armed with balkatis - High Court erred in granting bail 
to that co-accused as well - Other two co-accused were not 
armed with sharp edged weapons but with lathis/dandas - The 
State did not allege pendency of any previous cases against 
G 
them and it was also not the prosecution case that they 
endeavoured to intimidate or influence witnesses - Bail order 
in respect of them accordingly not interfered with. 
513 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The prosecution case was that pursuant to an 
altercation, Respondent no.2-accused and other accused 
persons armed with a sharp edged weapon (balkati) and 
lathis attacked the appellant, his two sons and grandson 
all of whom suffered serious injuries. One son of appellant 
B died. Case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 
323, 325, 302 l.P.C. Respondent no.2 and three other 
ac:cused -'R', S' and 'H' were denied bail by the Sessions 
Judge. The High Court, however, granted them bail, by 
the impugned order. 
c 
Disposing of the instant appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. 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 the High 
D Court had ignored his criminal antecedents as well as the 
specific role assigned against him in the subject 
complaint. Keeping the above factors in view, primarily 
the criminal antecedents of Respondent no.2, it cannot 
be said that it is fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible 
E 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 filed by the State, details 
of as many as ten cases in which Respondent no.2 is 
involved have been given. In these circumstances, 
F 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 
G persons who have come into conflict with the law on 
multiple occasions. Accordingly, the bail of Respondent 
no.2 is cancelled. [Para 4-6] [518-D-H] 
2. The alleged role ascribed to 'R' is identical in 
material particulars to that of Respondent no.2, both of 
H whom allegedly were armed with Balkatis. As per the 
ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P. 
515 
Affidavit filed on behalf of the State there are as many as 
A 
fifteen cases pending against him. Therefore, the High 
Court erred in granting bail to 'R' as well. So far as 'S' and 
'H' are concerned, it appears that they were not armed 
with sharp edged weapons but with lathis/dandas. The 
State has not alleged pendency of any previous cases 
B 
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 'S' & 
'H' are concerned, the impugned Order is not interfered 
with. [Paras 8 and 9] [519-C-D, F-G] 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1678 of 2013 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the 
Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.