JAGJEET SINGH & ORS versus ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 18-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 536
536
JAGJEET SINGH & ORS.
v.
ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022)
APRIL 18, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.2(wa),372, 439 –
Victim’s right to be heard – Consideration for granting bail –
Lakhimpur Kheri Incident – On 03.10.2021, an annual Dangal
(wrestling) competition was organised by respondent-accused –
Some supporters of respondent No.1, who were travelling by a car
to the Dangal venue were allegedly attacked by certain farmers –
Due to the large protest, the route of the Chief Guest had to be
changed – Respondent Accused became agitated –Respondent No.1
and his aides, armed with weapons, left the Dangal venue in a
Mahindra Thar SUV, a Fortuner vehicle and a Scorpio vehicle,
and drove towards the farmers’ protest site and allegedly drove into
the crowd of the returning farmers and hit them –As a consequence
of this incident, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of the Thar
Vehicle and two others, got killed –Respondent-accused was charged
u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 r/w. ss. 34 and 120B IPC, and u/
ss.3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 –Respondent-accused moved
bail application before High Court – High Court granted regular
bail to him, opining that it was a case of “accident by hitting with
the vehicle’’ –Aggrieved victims filed instant appeal – Held: The
right of a victim under the amended Cr.P.C. are substantive,
enforceable, and are another facet of human rights – A ‘victim’
within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the
commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in
the proceedings – A ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from
the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in
an appeal or revision – High Court failed to acknowledge the right
of the victims –The ‘victims’ were denied a fair and effective hearing
at the time of granting bail to respondent-Accused –High Court
completely lost sight of the principles which conventionally govern
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
a Court’s discretion when deciding the question whether or not to
grant bail – High Court adopted a myopic view of the evidence on
the record and proceeded to decide the case on merits –High Court
took into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst
simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established
parameters for grant of bail –The impugned order of the High cannot
be sustained –To meet ends of justice, case remitted to High Court
for fresh adjudication of the bail application after giving adequate
opportunity of hearing to the victims as well.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Considerations while
granting the bail – A Court while deciding an application for bail,
should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment
of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the
threshold stage – While a Court may examine prima facie issues,
including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed
an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive
consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either
the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:Right of victims to be heard
– First Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the
right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous
crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where the
victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal
proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair
and effective hearing – If the right to file an appeal against acquittal
is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding
a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of
justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Cancellation of Bail –
Interference by Supreme Court –This Court on account of the factors
like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order
granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by
touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to
participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by
the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/
accused; can rightfully cancel the bail.
JAGJEET SINGH & ORS. v. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.

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