BOHATTI DEVI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
BOHATTI DEVI
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 120B – Bail – Respondent no.2-
accused granted bail by High Court – On appeal, held : No cogent
reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the
respondent no.2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too
in a very serious offence u/ss.302 and 120B – Material and/or
relevant aspects have been ignored by the High Court while releasing
the respondent no.2 on bail – Further, while considering the parity
with co-accused, it did not consider the role attributed to the said
co-accused and the allegations against respondent no.2 – Impugned
judgment set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1695 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095
of 2022.
Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Deepali, Tarun Gupta, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv., Sarvesh
Singh Baghel, B. N. Dubey, Vishal Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Dubey,
Abhishek Chauhan, H. B. Dubey, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Amit P. Shahi,
Ashish Tanwar, R. Khanna, Amit Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 283
283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095 of 2022 by which
the High Court has released the respondent No. 2 accused on bail in
connection with the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B
IPC, the original complainant (now the State) has preferred the present
appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No.
2 is facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.
Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, it can be seen that
the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity of
the offence alleged against the respondent No. 2. Even the High Court
has not considered the relevant material forming the charge sheet. No
cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the
respondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a
very serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.
2.1 The High Court has also not considered the fact that earlier
the respondent No. 2 – accused initiated the proceedings before the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him by filing an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by
the High Court. The High Court has also not considered that the special
leave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court rejecting
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also got dismissed by this Court.
The High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailable
warrant was issued against respondent No. 2 – accused and thereafter,
he was arrested in the year 2021. All the aforesaid aspects, which are
very material and/or relevant while considering the prayer for bail have
been ignored by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 on
bail.
2.2 From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the
High Court has considered the enlargement on bail to the co-accused
Vicky and Sarvesh @ Mangal. However, the High Court while considering
the parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-
accused and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent
No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent
No. 2 - accused on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 1069 of 2014
for the offence under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Baraut, District
Baghpat is hereby quashed and set aside.
Now, the respondent No.2 to surrender before the concerned Jail
Authority / Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which,
non-bailable warrant be issued
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.