MAUJI RAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 29-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
MAUJI RAM
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1150 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 439 – Bail –  In a murder case  – Denied by Sessions Court
–  Allowed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court by complainant
– Held: Though it may not be necessary to give categorical finding
while granting or rejecting bail, yet it must appear from the order
that court has applied its mind – In the present case High Court
committed jurisdictional error as it did not assign any reason for
granting the bail  – In the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for
grant of bail  – Bail.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though it may not be necessary to give
categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail for want of
full evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the defence
at that stage, yet it must appear from a perusal of the order that
the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of
the material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration
of bail application.  It is unfortunate that neither the law laid down
by this Court, nor the material filed by the prosecution was taken
note of by the High Court while considering the grant of bail to
the respondents. [Para 13] [325-C-D]
2. The High Court committed jurisdictional error in
passing the impugned order because the High Court did not
assign any reason whatsoever as to on what grounds, even though
of a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bail
to the respondents. [Para 12] [325-B]
3. Having perused the FIR and keeping in view the
antecedents of the accused persons which are brought on record
by the State in their counter affidavit and further keeping in view
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 321
  321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
the manner in which the offence under Section 302 IPC was
committed, the Court is prima facie of the view that this is not a
fit case for grant of bail to the accused persons. These factors
were relevant while considering the bail application and, they
were not taken into consideration. [Para 15] [325-F-G]
4.  Taking into consideration the entire scenario of the case,
this was not a fit case for grant of bail to the respondents(accused
persons) by the High Court. The Sessions Judge, was,
therefore, right in rejecting the bail applications filed by the
respondents. [Para 17] [326-B]
Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 7
SCC 507 ; Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
(2008) 16 SCC 753 : [2008] 14 SCR 980 ;
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC
22 : [2018] 1 SCR 882 –   relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 7 SCC 507
     relied on
Para 13
[2008] 14 SCR 980
     relied on
Para 13
[2018] 1 SCR 882
     relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1150 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1859 of
2019
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1151-1152, 1153-1156 of 2019.
Rishi Malhotra,  Adv. for the Appellant.
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Pranshu Kaushal,
Mr.Sandeep Singh, Adnan Siddiqui, Suhit K. Sharma, Sarvesh Singh
Baghel, Puny Garg, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17.01.2019
in CRMBA No.1859 of 2019, dated 24.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3574/
2019, dated 29.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3547/2019, dated 06.02.2019 in
CRMBA No.4627/2019, dated 18.02.2019 in CRMBA No.6450/2019,
dated 12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated 26.03.2019
in CRMBA No.11793 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these
appeals, which involve a short point.
4. Respondent No.2 in all the appeals, namely, Subhash, Kartar,
Sohit, Amarjeet, Soran Bhati, Lilu@Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total-
7), herein after collectively referred to as “respondents”  are facing trial
for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149,
302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506  and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)  which  arise out of Crime No. 608/
2018 registered with P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP)
pending in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge,  Gautam Budh Nagar in BA
No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/20

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