LexRAMAYAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 686 : 2024 INSC 323 Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2024) 19 April 2024 [Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Discretion to grant bail ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously, and injudiciously – Appeal allowed – High Court ought not to have been granted bail on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of accused persons; and (iii) overall impact of crime on the society. Held: Accused persons charged under s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code along with s. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 – In relation to FIR lodged by Appellant stating that persons including Respondent No. 2 and a co-accused attacked him, his uncle (the deceased) and another person – Bail applications of both accused persons rejected by trial court – Appeals against trial court orders allowed – Bail granted by High Court – Appellant challenged correctness of High Court’s orders – Appeal allowed – Grant of bail involves exercise of discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously – Bail ought not to have been granted on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of accused person(s); and (iii) overall impact of the crime on society at large as the accused persons had overwhelming influence in the area. [Paras 15, 19] Case Law Cited Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [2014] 12 SCR 453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [2010] 12 SCR 1165 : (2010) 14 SCC 496; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118 – relied on. [2024] 4 S.C.R. 687 Ramayan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Grant of bail; Exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC; Parameters for granting bail. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 11828 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Devvrat, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Prithvi Pal, Manoj Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Sr. Adv., Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Ajay Singh, Ms. Sneh Suman, Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, Subodh S. Patil, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal i.e., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 14988 of 2023, seeks to assail the correctness of a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) dated 24.04.2023 wherein, the High Court allowed Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal’s / Respondent No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and accordingly enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained therein (the “Impugned Order”). 3. By an order dated 31.10.2023, a co-accused i.e., Punit Pal was enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The appeal 688 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports filed by the Appellant against that order has been tagged with the present appeal vide an order dated 02.01.2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 355 of 2024. Moreover, as the facts and the questions involved in the present appeal(s) are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.