LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 11-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 629
629
LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2021)
DECEMBER 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and
s.120B – Arms Act – s.27/30 – Two FIRs were filed, both pertained
to the same incident – There was a clash of two groups by using
firearms which resulted in indiscriminate firing from both sides –
First FIR No.406 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188, 120B
IPC and s.27/30 of the Arms Act) was filed by the appellant alleging
that he along with his brother and some other persons had gone to
seek return of the money which he had given to a person of the
another group – It is alleged that they were fired upon and as a
result of the indiscriminate firing, appellant’s brother died and others
were injured – Second FIR No.407 of 2020 (u/ss.147, 148, 149,
307 IPC) was filed by another group, however, they alleged that
appellant and his group were the aggressors and they had fired
upon them – The High Court granted bail to the accused persons in
the first FIR and in the second FIR the accused persons i.e. appellant
and others were denied anticipatory bail – On appeal, held: A
perusal of the order in the proceedings relating to the first FIR in
bail application indicates that the Single Judge of the High Court
though has taken note of details of the incident and the contention
of the parties, has not analyzed the same to record the satisfaction
to enlarge the accused on bail – The conclusion recorded by the
Single Judge of the High Court is almost verbatim similar to the
portion which is extracted and disapproved by the Supreme Court
in Mahipal’s case – The accused were enlarged on bail though the
charges were grave, which included s.302 IPC and s.27/30 of the
Arms Act – The fact that the said accused persons had spent 10, 7
and 4 months respectively in custody have weighed with the High
Court which could not have been a mitigating factor when charges
of such serious nature are to be tried – Further, one of the accused
had seven cases registered against him and investigation is not yet
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
complete in the second FIR – One person died due to firearm wound
– So, release of the accused persons at this juncture not justified –
As far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the appellant himself stated
in the first FIR that accused persons caught hold of his brother’s
licensed pistol, which would indicate that appellant and his group
were also armed – So, it is too premature at this stage to arrive at
any conclusion as to which group was the aggressor – The State
indicated that one of the reasons for incomplete investigation was
that one person was still undergoing treatment, that itself makes it
clear that injuries were not of simple nature – The allegations, in
the instant case were of serious nature which would require a detailed
investigation and recovery of weapons in the course of investigation
which is yet to be completed – Thus, it is not a fit case where the
appellants need to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail – Also,
the bail order granting bail to the accused in first FIR set aside and
their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021 in the
proceedings relating to FIR No. 406 of 2020 in Bail Application
indicates that the Single Judge of the High Court though has
taken note of details of the incident and the contention of the
parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction to
enlarge the accused on bail. [Para 12][637-F-G]
2. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is
noticed that the conclusion recorded by the Single Judge of the
High Court is almost verbatim similar to the portion which is
extracted and disapproved by this Court in Mahipal’s case. It is
noticed that with such sweeping observation made, the accused
in FIR No. 406 of 2020 have been ordered to be enlarged on bail
though the charges thereunder are grave, which include Section
302 IPC and Section 27/30 of the Arms Act. The allegation is of
indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of the
brother of the complainant. It is no doubt true, that the
investigation has been carried out in the said case and the
chargesheet is stated to have been filed. Further, the fact that
the said accused persons had spent 10, 7 and 4 month

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