BRIJMANI DEVI versus PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 17-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
BRIJMANI DEVI
v.
PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1663 of 2021)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 34; 341, 307 r/w 34 – Bail –
Respondent accused of murder of appellant’s son – Bail rejected by
Sessions Court –Granted by High Court with certain conditions –
On appeal, held: Offences alleged against respondent are serious
vis-a-vis the appellant’s son at two points of time, in 2017 alleging
attempt to murder him and in 2020 alleging his murder – Respondent
has criminal antecedents – There is a likelihood of him absconding
or threatening the witnesses if on bail which would have a vital
bearing on the trial – Present cases not fit for grant of bail to the
respondent in respect of the two serious accusations against him
vis-a-vis the very same person – High Court lost sight of the vital
aspects of the case and granted bail by very cryptic orders –
Impugned orders set aside – Respondent to surrender – Arms Act –
ss.25, 27 – Maxims – cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex.
Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered – Discussed.
Bail – Order of – Recording of reasons – Held: While
elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the
same time an order de hors reasoning or bereft of relevant reasons
cannot result in grant of bail – It would be only a non speaking
order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice
– In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to
assail the order before a higher forum – Principles of natural justice.
Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 :
[1978] 2 SCR 371; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of
Delhi & ORS (2001) 4 SCC 280 : [2001] 2 SCR 684;
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3
SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 533
533
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7
SCC 528 : [2004] 7 SCC 528; Gobarbhai Naranbhai
Singala vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. etc. etc. (2008) 3
SCC 775 : [2008] 2 SCR 131; Panchanan Mishra vs.
Digambar Mishra (2005) 3 SCC 143 : [2005] 1 SCR
484; State of UP vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC
21 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv
Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446 :
[2012] 7 SCR 584; Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr.
(2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 :
[2017] 11 SCR 195; Bhoopindra Singh vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. Cr.A. 1279 of 2021; Mahipal vs.
Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529;
Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 : [2010] 10
SCR 1070 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 2 SCR 371
relied on
Para 17
[2001] 2 SCR 684
relied on
Para 21
[2002] 2 SCR 526
relied on
Para 21
[2004] 7 SCC 528
relied on
Para 21
[2008] 2 SCR 131
relied on
Para 21
[2005] 1 SCR 484
relied on
Para 21
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454
relied on
Para 21
[2012] 7 SCR 584
relied on
Para 21
[2015] 10 SCR 802
relied on
Para 21
[2017] 11 SCR 195
relied on
Para 21
Cr.A. 1279 of 2021
relied on
Para 21
[2019] 14 SCR 529
relied on
Para 21
[2010] 10 SCR 1070
relied on
Para 22
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1663 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.11683 of 2021.
With
Criminal Appeal No.1664 of 2021.
Smarhar Singh, Ms. Shweta Kumari, Nagendra Sharma, Ramakant
Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Yogesh Ahirraj, Ajit Pravin Wagh, Ms. Astha
Prasad, A. Karthik, Arsh Khan, Saket Singh, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Manish
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
NAGARATHNA J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the informant - appellant
assailing the orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.11683 of
2021 and 26463 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to
the accused who is the common respondent in the appeals, in connection
with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case
No.316 of 2017 respectively.
3. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the mother of
the deceased Rupesh Kumar. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the
killing of her son and also the person who lodged t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.