KUMER SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 20-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
KUMER SINGH
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2021)
JULY 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Prosecution
case was that the accused brutally killed brother of the complainant
in a pre-planned manner – 26 injuries were found on the body of
the victim-deceased and 11 injuries on brother of the deceased
caused by blunt and sharp weapons – Complainant filed instant
appeal challenging the bail granted by High Court on the ground
that no reasons whatsoever were assigned by High Court while
releasing the accused on bail – Held: Except narrating the
submissions made on behalf of the accused and the public prosecutor
and the complainant, there was no independent application of mind
by the High Court and as such no reasons whatsoever were assigned
by the High Court releasing the accused on bail, that too in a case
where the accused were facing charges for offences punishable
under ss.302 and 307 read with s.149 of the IPC and the other
offences in which one person was killed and another person was
seriously injured – High Court did not at all take into consideration
the facts of the case; the nature of allegations; gravity of offences
and role attributed to the accused – As a matter of fact, there was
no discussion or analysis of circumstances at all – The impugned
order passed by the High Court can be said to be perverse and
suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant factors to be
considered while grant of bail – Interference warranted.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
Held: 1. All the accused are facing trial for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 427, 302 read
with Section 149 of the IPC on the allegation of having killed the
brother of the appellant and having injured one person. As per
the medical evidence on record total 26 injuries were found on
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 539
539
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
the deceased and 11 injuries on the injured which were caused
by blunt and sharp weapons. As per the case of the prosecution
the respondents – accused were part of the unlawful assembly
and all of them who were carrying the lathis actually participated
in the commission of the offences. Despite the seriousness of
the offence committed by the accused and despite the manner in
which the offence took place, without adverting to the
seriousness of the offence and the manner in which the offence
was committed, by the impugned orders, the High Court has
released the accused on bail. The impugned orders releasing
the accused on bail showed that except first narrating the
submissions/contentions on behalf of the accused and the
submissions made by the Public Prosecutor thereafter the High
Court without assigning any further reasons released the accused
on bail by simply observing that “considering the contentions
put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow
the second bail application”. The impugned order passed by the
High Court can be said to be perverse and suffers from non-
application of mind to the relevant factors to be considered while
grant of bail and therefore the interference of this Court is
warranted. [Paras 10, 13.2][547-B-E; 558-E]
2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused
that the accused are released on bail in the year 2019 and by now
more than approximately 2 years have passed after they were
released on bail and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty
and/or having committed any breach of the conditions of the grant
of bail and therefore this court may not set aside the order passed
by the High Court is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.
Immediately after the grant of bail in the month of May, 2019, the
present appeals have been preferred in the month of July, 2019
i.e. within a period of 2 months and even this Court also issued
notice in the present proceedings in the month of August, 2019.
Therefore, as such there is no delay on the part of the complainant
in challenging the impugned orders passed by the High Court
releasing the accused on bail. The application for cancellation of
bail stands on a different footing than challenging the order passed
by the High Court/Appellate Court releasing the accused on bail.
[Para 15][559-A-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. (2020) 2
SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : [2014]

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