MANNO LAL JAISWAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 990
990
MANNO LAL JAISWAL
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2022)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 439 and 161 – Bail –
Grant of – Appellant lodged FIR against the respondents-accused
for murder of his son – Respondents-accused applied for bail –
Sessions Courts rejected the said bail applications – High Court
granted bail to respondents – Appellant approached this court and
submitted that – (i) High Court erroneously noted that the accused
persons were not named in the FIR and that the statement of
witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.PC were recoded after inordinate delay; (ii)
High Court have not considered the gravity of the offence committed
by the accused persons and have not considered that the offence
was committed u/s. 149; (iii) No reasons were assigned and the
decision was passed mechanically and without application of mind
– Held: Accused persons were named in the FIR and the statements
u/s. 161 Cr.PC. were recorded on the very same day – High Court
had applied wrong facts in granting of bail – When accused were
charged u/s. 149 and when their presence was established, adding
the fact that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual
role of accused is not relevant – High court have not adverted to
the gravity and nature of offence and no reasons were assigned
while granting the bail – High Court have granted bail mechanically
and on application of wrong facts – Judgement of High Court is
quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to surrender forthwith
– Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 147,148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307
and 34.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The fact that all the accused persons were named
in the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the very day, on applying
the wrong facts, the High Court has released respective
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
respondents No.2-accused on bail. The High Court has noted
the submissions made on behalf of the accused, which has been
accepted by the High Court that the accused were not named in
the FIR and that their names were disclosed during investigation
and that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC
were recorded at a later stage/belatedly. The aforesaid are factually
incorrect. Even the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
has submitted that it was not the case on behalf of the accused
that they were not named in the FIR and/or that the statements
of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded
belatedly and/or at a later stage. Therefore, it appears that the
High Court has granted the bail to respective respondents No.2
in such serious offences in which one person was killed
mechanically and without applying the correct facts.
[Para 8.1][995-F-H; 996-A]
2. The High Court has noted the submissions made on
behalf of the accused that role attributed to respective
respondents No.2 that using the wicket as weapon it is difficult
to decipher at that stage that the accused have caused fatal injury
over the person. When the accused were charged for the offences
punishable under Section 149 of the IPC also and when their
presence has been established and it is stated that they were
part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act
by the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant. Even
otherwise the order(s) passed by the High Court releasing
respective respondents No.2 on bail in such serious offences in
which one person was killed is unsustainable. The High Court
has not adverted to the gravity and nature of the offences at all.
Even no reasons are assigned by the High Court. [Para 8.2,
8.3][996-C-E]
3. Even otherwise, the High Court has also not considered
the relevant considerations while grant of bail as observed and
held by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav case. In the
said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that while
granting bail, the relevant considerations are (i) nature of
seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and
MANNO LAL JAISWAL v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact
that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact
on the society; and (v) likelihoo

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