LACHHMAN DASS versus RESHAM CHAND KALER AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 23-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · 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
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
LACHHMAN DASS
v.
RESHAM CHAND KALER AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2018)
JANUARY  23, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Bail:
Prosecution u/ss. 302, 307, 324, 326, 120B, 148 and 149
IPC and ss. 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 – Bail applications
filed by respondents-accused rejected by trial court – High Court
granted bail – Complainant’s appeal – Held: A prima facie case is
made out against the accused – The seriousness and gravity of the
offence is evident from the Compact Disc (CD) – There is no reason
to accord any special consideration to the respondent-accused (in
Crl. A. No. 161 of 2018) for his not being Indian National – In the
eyes of law every accused is the same,irrespective of their nationality
– He is alleged to be the kingpin of the criminal conspiracy which
demands his custodial interrogation – Accused in Crl. A. No. 162
of 2018 was granted bail on the basis of parity with the above
accused – Bail order of that accused having been set aside, bail of
this accused is also liable to be set aside – Accused in Crl. A. No.
163 of 2018 was granted bail without taking into consideration
that he was declared a proclaimed offender – His bail is also liable
to be set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439.
Appeal seeking cancellation of bail and appeal challenging
an order granting bail – Distinction between.
Judiciary:
Judicial discipline – Held: It is not expected of High Court to
pass a mandatory order commanding the subordinate court to
compulsorily grant bail – Such mandatory directions breach the
independence of subordinate courts – Bail.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 326
326
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
HELD:
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2018:
1. A prima facie case is made out against the respondent-
accused, as in the Compact Disc (CD) filed alongwith the petition,
the group of persons are seen committing the offence using deadly
weapons and sticks. The seriousness and gravity of the offence
can be clearly observed from the CD. However, aforesaid
observations must not be construed as findings on merits.
Though  respondent No. 1 is not a citizen of this country (British
national), yet the fact remains that he along with other persons
has indulged in the criminal activity. The case of the prosecution
mainly revolves around him as he is alleged to be the kingpin of
the criminal conspiracy which demands his custodial interrogation.
In such circumstances,  the High Court did not appreciate the
facts of the case with prudent legal perception. There is no reason
to accord any special consideration for respondent No.1 by virtue
of a simple fact that he is a citizen of different country. The law
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is very clear and in the eyes of the
law every accused is the same, irrespective of their nationality.
[Para 11][331-H; 332-A-C]
2. This case is not an appeal seeking cancellation of bail in
any sense rather, this case calls for the legal sustainability of the
impugned order granting bail to the accused-respondent. The
difference between the cancellation of the bail and a legal
challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of
material available on record is a settled proposition. To clarify,
there is no ground pleaded herein that a supervening event
breaching bail conditions is raised.  [Para 12][332-D-E]
State through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC
21; Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
(2011) 6 SCC 189; Mohan v. State of Rajasthan [2017]
14 SCALE 280 – referred to.
Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2018:
3. The impugned judgment which granted bail to the
respondent in this appeal on the basis of parity with respondent
No. 1 in Crl. Appeal No. 161 of 2018. As his bail has alredy been
    LACHHMAN DASS v. RESHAM CHAND KALER AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
set aside, thereby effacing the footing on which the grant of bail
by the High Court stood. Otherwise also, this case is not fit for
extending the liberty of bail. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent No. 1 is
set aside. [Para 16][332-H; 333-A-B]
Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2018:
4. The order of the High Court on the first instance clearly
points out that it has virtually directed the course of action to be
undertaken by the subordinate court. It is not expected from the
High Court to pass such mandatory orders commanding the
subordinate court to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.