LexNASIRUDDIN versus STATE (NCT) DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1085 NASIRUDDIN v. STATE (NCT) DELHI AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of 2013) AUGUST 07, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: A B s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Cancellation of - Investigation c against appellants for causing gun-shot injuries to complainant, pending - Addi. Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail - Held: This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is not over and the weapon used in the offence is yet to be traced - None 0 of the accused persons had disclosed the source from which the weapon and bullets were procured - Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail, opined that after having considered the medical report, the ingredients of s. 326 /PC have not been satisfied - It was too early for the Additional Sessions Judge to express any opinion merely E looking at the medical report, which, however, positively indicates of gunshot injury, may be simple, and it is due to that reason that the police has added the offences uls. 307 /PC as well as s. 25 of the Arms Act - Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondents - Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge and the affirmation order passed by High Court, are set aside. F During the pendency of investigation in a case of gun-shot injuries stated to have been caused to the G complainant, the Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to respondent nos. 2-4 observing that having considered the medical report, ingredients of 1085 H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A s.326 IPC were not satisfied. The High Court affirmed the order. B Allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, the Court HELD: This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is not over and the weapon used in the offence is yet to be traced. None of the accused persons had disclosed the source from which the weapon and bullets were procured and the C Investigating Officer has pointed out that the offence u/ s. 20~ would be charged if the weapon is not traced/ recovered. The medical report refers to the gunshot injury caused to the appellant. The FIR was also found promptly registered. The question as to whether the case will fall D u/s. 326. IPC could be determined only after the investigation is completed. It was too early for the Additional Sessions Judge to express any opinion merely looking at the medical report, which positively indicates of gunshot injury, may be simple, and it is due to that E reason that the police has added the offences u/s. 307 IPC as well as s. 25 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in- granting anticipatory bail to respondents 2-4. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the F affirmation order passed by the High Court, are set aside. [Para 12-13] [1091-D-F, G-H; 1092-A·B] State Rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma· 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 737 = (1997) 7 SCC 187, State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Another 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 412 = (1997) 8 G SCC 104, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Another 2012 (5) SCR 1 = (2012) 4 SCC 379 and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of Orissa and Others 2012 (5) SCR 674 = (2012) 5 SCC 690; Savitri Agarwal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2009 (10 ) SCR 978 = (2009) 8 H sec 325 - cited. NASIRUDDIN v. STATE (NCT) DELHI 1087 Case Law Reference: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 737 cited para 7 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 412 cited para 7 2012 (5) SCR 1 cited para 7 2012 (5) SCR 674 cited para 7 2009 (10) SCR 978 cited para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of2013. From the judgment and Order dated 03.09.2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. · M.C. No. 3021 of 2012. A B c N.S. Dalal, D.P. Singh, M. Rein, R.C. Kaushik for the D Appellant. Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Mukul Gupta, Shiv Mangat Sharma, Anjali Chauhan, Jaisleen Kaur, D.S. Mahra, Yunus Malik, Shashank Singh, Prashant Chaudhary for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Can the Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with E an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of F the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), express his opinion on merits that no case i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.