PURAN MAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 10-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 859
859
PURAN MAL
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2022)
MARCH 10, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail –
Respondent no.2 was accused of offence u/s.302, IPC – Bail denied
by Trial Court – Granted by High Court – On appeal by complainant,
held: When the Trial Court has dismissed the bail application (in
the present case it was dismissed twice), the High Court while taking
a view different from the Trial Court ought to give some cogent and
valid reasons for grant of bail – Nature of offence in the present
case is very grave – Fact that the son (accused no.1) of the
respondent no.2 had stabbed the deceased in his presence is prima
facie clear from the material available and the CCTV footage filed
before High Court – Details of the phone calls made between the
respondent no.2 and his son are also on record – All these factors
not considered by High Court – Further, there are allegations that
the family of the deceased had been threatened on behalf of
respondent no.2 – Order passed by the High Court granting bail to
respondent no.2 is quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302.
Criminal Law – Bail – Grant/rejection of – Guiding principles
– Discussed.
Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote
& Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 559 : [1980] 3 SCR 15; Ram
Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002)
3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Jaibunisha vs.
Meharban & Anr. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 58; Brijmani
Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. (2021) SCC Online SC
1280]; X vs. State of Telangana and Anr. (2018) 16 SCC
511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC
528 : 2004 (3) JT 442; Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 648 : 2020 (2)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
JT 72; State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi
(2005) 8 SCC 21 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[1980] 3 SCR 15
relied on
Para 10
[2002] 2 SCR 526
relied on
Para 10
[2018] 4 SCR 466
relied on
Para 11
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454
relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
398 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 37527 of 2020.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Ishaan George, Advs. for the appellant.
Anil Kaushik, Addl. AG, Ms. Anju Kaushik, Vishwa Pal Singh,
Shishir Mathur, Viresh B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwal, Advs. for the
respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a case
for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
‘IPC’). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by the
Trial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High Court has allowed
the bail application of the respondent no. 2. The complainant has filed
this appeal by way of special leave petition questioning legality of the
order granting bail to the respondent no.2.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who was
the brother of the complainant/appellant, had received fatal injuries and
died between the night intervening 16/17.06.2020.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking,
in substance, cancellation of the order granting bail is that there was a
long standing rivalry between the deceased and the respondent no. 2
and on 16.06.2020 evening itself there was a scuffle between the two in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
which the deceased had received injuries and he had lodged a complaint
in his own handwriting with the police station at 08.00 p.m. (which was
registered subsequently on the next date). After lodging FIR, the deceased
had gone to the hospital for treatment. It is contended that the respondent
no. 2 also reached the hospital and according to the appellant, the call
records would show that he called his son to the hospital who then attacked
the deceased with knife causing grievous injuries on account of which
the deceased expired. It is further submitted that in this background the
bail applications of the respondent no. 2 were twice rejected by the Trial
Court and the High Court has granted the bail without considering these
aspects and without assigning any cogent reasons. It is also submitted
that after being released on bail there are allegations against the respondent
no. 2 threatening the family members 

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