RAM PRAKASH PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 31-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM PRAKASH PANDEY 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
AUGUST 31, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S. 43 7 (2)-Life convict-Committing another offence of murder-Grant 
C of bail-Held, not to be released on bail unless there is no reasonable ground 
for believing that he has committed the offence and/or there are Special rea-
sons to do so--Order of High Court granting bail ignoring the provisions of 
s.437(2) set aside. 
Respondent No. 2 a life convict, while on bail pending appeal against 
D his conviction and sentence, was arrested for another offence of murder of . 
appellant's wife. The prosecution case was that the appellant's wife was an 
eyewitness in the case of murder of the wife of respondent No. 2 and in that 
case respondent No. 2 was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life 
by Trial Court. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against his conviction and 
E sentence and pending appeal he was released on bail. When he came out, he 
alongwith another person shot dead the wife of the Appellant. On an FIR 
being lodged by the appellant, a case was registered under section 302 read 
with section 34 IPC against respondent No.2, and his co-accused who 
absconded. Application of respondent No.2 for bail was rejected by the 
Sessions Court. Thereafter, he approached the High Court, which granted 
F him bail. Aggrieved, the husband of the deceased, filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Bail has ben granted to respondent No. 2 by the High Court 
ignoring the provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
G 1973. In view of s.437(2), a person who has been previously convicted of an 
offence punishable with life imprisonment shall not be released on bail unless 
there is no reasonable ground for believing that such a person has committed 
the offence and/or there are special reasons to do so. (425-8; 427-8( 
2. The High Court has dealt with the matter in a most cursory manner. 
H 
422 
R.P. PANDEYv. STATE OF U.P. [VARIAVA, J.] 
423 
It is to be seen that the co-accused is still absconding. Two witnesses have A 
already retracted their statements. There are still eye witnesses, who have 
directly connected respondent No.2 and assigned a specific role to him in the 
murder of the deceased. Thus at this stage it could not be said that there is 
reasonable ground for believing that respondent No.2 has not committed the 
offence. No special reasons for granting bail have been indicated by the High B 
Court. The alleg_ed ailment of respondent No.2 is also not such as required 
releasing him on bail. He can always apply to the jail authorities for providing 
him medical treatment, if required. The order of the High Court granting 
bail is set aside. [425-A, B; 427-C, DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 880 C 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.2000 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl.M.B.A. No. 12733 of 2000. 
Ms. Rachana Srivastava for the Appellant. 
Prakash Kr. Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Respondent No. I. 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Shashinder Tripathi and M.P. Shorawala for the 
Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th September, 2000 by which 
the High Court of Allahabad has granted bail to the 2nd Respondent. 
Briefly stated the facts leading to this Appeal are as follows: 
D 
E 
F 
The Appellant is the 1st informant and husband of one deceased Hem G 
Lata Pandey. The said deceased Hem Lata Pandey had given evidence against 
the 2nd Respondent, as an eye witness, in a case of murder of the wife of the 
2nd Respondent. This had resulted in the conviction of the 2nd Respondent 
by the Trial Court. The trial Court has given a sentence of life imprisonment 
to the 2nd Respondent. 
H 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The 2nd Respondent filed an appeal. Pending appeal the appellate court 
granted him bail. Apprehending danger to life the deceased Hem Lata Pandey 
had applied to the Government for protection. She had even filed a petition 
in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. That petition has been disposed 
of by the High Court with a direction to the Home Secretary to consider the 
B representation made by the deceased and take appropriate action. Inspite of 
this direction no protection was given to the deceased. 
It is a case of the appellant that on 31st January, 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.