HARJIT SINGH versus INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 24-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
HARJIT SINGH
v.
INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2021)
AUGUST 24, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Bail: Grant of bail – Exercise of power while granting bail,
scope of – Duty of appellate court particularly when bail was refused
by lower courts and principles and considerations for granting or
refusing the bail – Discussed – In the instant case, complainant
had lodged FIR alleging that his father was murdered by the accused
in connivance with respondent no.1 who was undergoing sentence
on account of a case registered at the instance of the complainant
party – Respondent no.1 filed bail application before High Court –
High Court released respondent no. 1 on bail by observing that it
was not disputed that he had not fired nor had participated directly
in the incident as he was in custody – Original informant, son of
the deceased filed instant appeal – Held: Material on record showed
that as and when respondent no.1 was granted bail, he came out of
the jail, committed another offence and again went to jail – High
Court  failed to notice that earlier also respondent no. 1 had been
involved in criminal cases and was convicted and while on bail
during the pendency of appeal against conviction, again committed
the offence – Thus, there was a high possibility of threat and danger
to the life and safety of the appellant/complainant and his family
members, as is evident from the criminal history of respondent no.1
– High Court failed to appreciate and consider the nature of
accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction
and nature of supporting evidence – There was, thus, non-application
of mind to the seriousness of the crime and circumstances which
ought to have been taken into consideration while granting bail –
High Court’s order granting bail set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court has failed to appreciate and
consider the nature of the accusation and the severity of the
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 258
258
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence. The High Court has also failed to appreciate the facts
of the case; the nature of allegations; gravity of offence and the
role attributed to the accused. As per the allegations, the accused
- respondent no.1 is the main conspirator who hatched the
conspiracy along with other co-accused and that too from the jail.
The High Court has also failed to notice the serious allegation of
hatching conspiracy from the jail. The High Court ought to have
considered that if respondent no.1 – accused can hatch the
conspiracy from jail, what he will not do if he is released on bail.
As such, in the present case, the High Court failed to notice that
earlier respondent no.1 - accused has been involved in four cases
and has been convicted and even while on bail during the
pendency of the appeal against the conviction, again he indulged
into similar activities and committed the offence. Respondent
no.1 is a habitual offender. On number of occasions, he has tried
to kill the complainant/appellant and his family. He has repeatedly
committed offence of attempting to murder the appellant
complainant thrice and has been convicted in all the three FIRs.
From the material on record, it is clear that as and when he is
granted bail, he came out of the jail, committed another offence
and again went to jail. Even the High Court cancelled the bail in
another case specifically observing that while on bail during the
pendency of the appeal, they were involved in other cases of
heinous crime. Thus,  there is a high possibility of threat and
danger to the life and safety of the appellant herein/complainant
and his family members, as is evident from the criminal history of
respondent no.1. The said relevant considerations are not at all
considered by the High Court in its true perspective. Grant of
bail to respondent no.1 does not appear to be in order. The
antecedents of respondent no.1; the threat perception to the
appellant and his family members are also not considered by the
High Court. [Paras 10, 11, 12][277-E-H; 279-A-E]
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P. (1978) 1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2 SCR 371; Ash
Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 : [2012]
7 SCR 584; State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal
(2004) 7 SCC 521 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 696; Mahipal
HARJIT SINGH v. INDERPREET SINGH @ I

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.