LexBRIJ NANDAN JAISWAL versus MUNNA @ MUNNA JAISWAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1348 BRIJ NANDAN JAISWAL -I V. MUNNA@ MUNNA JAISWAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2087/2008) .DECEMBERi 19, 2008 f ... [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND v:s. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ;!' / BAfL: Cancellation of bait granted by High Court - Accused having criminal history - Several criminal cases pending C against him - Applications seeking protection to complainants' family from accused - HELD: Complainant can always question the order granting bail if the same is not . validly passed - It is not as if once a bail is granted by any court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its o misuse - Bail order can be tested on merits also - Therefore, complainant could question the merits of order granting bail - In the instant case, the order indicates that no reasons were given by High Court while granting bail and it seems to have been granted almost mechanically without considering the pros and cons of the matter - While granting bail .. particularly E in serious cases like murder, some reasons justifying the grant of bail are necessary - Order granting bail is set aside and High Court directed to decide the application again - Accused shall· immediately surrender - After his surrender, bail application shall be considered by High Court again - F Order granting bail - Reasons to be recorded. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2087 _of 2008. From the Final Judgment & Order dated 5.6.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Bail Application Nos. G 11419of2007. Pramod Kumar Yadav and S.P. Sharma (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for the Appellant. Shiva Pujan Singh, Prashant Chaudhary and Bharat Ram (for Shrish Kumar Misra) for the Respondents. H 1348 1 . BRIJ NANDAN JAISWAL v. MUNNA @ MUNNA JAISWAL 1349 & ANR. The following Order of the Court was delivered: A ORDER j 1. Leave granted. 2. The order granting bail to the accused Munna @ Munna Jaiswal passed by the High Court is in challenge here. The B respondent - accused Munna is facing a prosecution for the offences under Sections 302, 504 & 506 l.P.C. in Crime Case No. 152 of 2006 of Police Station Chakia. It is alleged that on 15.12.2006 at about 4.45 p.m., a report came to be lodged regarding the incident that took place at 2.00 p.m. on the same day wherein it was alleged by complainant Brij Nandan Jaiswal 0 that his son alongwith Bechan and Balmukund went to cut woods in the forest and while they were coming back from the forest on bicycles, Brij Nandan and Bal Mukund were leading while complainant's son Jai Shankar was following them. When they all reached Jabelia Mode, Jai Shankar shouted very loudly. q At that time, the complainant and his companions saw that Jai Shankar was being inflicted blows with lathis, .danda and iron rods by Lalji and his son Kallu @ Vined, Munnu @ Munna and one other unknown person. On seeing the complainant party, all the four ran away towards forest threatening the complainant and his companions. While Jai Shankar was being taken for E r treatment, he died at about 3.00 p.m. The three accused persons were taken into custody between 03.01.2007 to 05.01.2007. Investigation proceeded during which the lathi was discovered. It was found that the accused had assaulted the complainant's family twice and even those cases were pending F - and charge sheets were filed in those cases. Apart from that, \' the accused Munna was also involved in a gambling case. The post-mortem report showed that the deceased had sustained several injuries and that Jai Shankar had died due to hemorrhage and resultant shock. ' 3. A bail application was filed before the Sessions Judge G • who rejected the same. It was urged before the Sessions Judge that the seven injuries were found on the hands and feet .It ~ of the deceased and as such it could not be said that this offence could be brought under Section 302 l.P.C. It was also urged that the alleged 4th person in the complainant's party was H 1350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A not located. The Sessions Judge took the view that the accused had criminal history. The Sessions Judge also found that it was broad day light murder and since the witnesses had seen the , murder been committed on account of the old enmity, the accused was not entitled to bail. 8 4. The High Court, however, in a very short order came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to be released o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.