RAVINDRA PAL SINGH versus AJIT SINGH & ANR

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 17-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R 946 
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH 
v. 
AJIT SINGH & ANR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2011) 
MARCH 17, 2011 
{B. SUNDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ .] 
Bail - Complainant's son allegedly shot down by the 
C police - CBI after investigation of the matter submitted charge 
sheet against the accused police officials - Bail application 
- Rejected by the Sessions Judge -High Court, however, 
granted bail - On appeal, held: The a/legations made against 
the accused-po/ice officials cannot be brushed aside at this 
D stage - CBI has already submitted charge-sheet - High Court 
ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature of 
the a/legations, the possibilities of undue influence being 
exerted on the prosecution witnesses at the instance of the 
police officials - High Court committed serious error in 
E granting bail to the accused-po/ice officials - Penal Code, 
1860 - ss. 302, 364, 201 and 120B. 
The appellant filed a case against the police 
personnel under Section 1208, 364, 302, 201 IPC. It is the 
F case of the appellant that his son was illegally picked up 
by the Dehradun Police and killed in cold blood. 
According to the post mortem report, a total of 29 bullets 
were fired at the deceased, 17 of these bullets hit the 
deceased at a very close range and 9 bullets were fired 
from a maximum distance of 3 feet. The investigation of 
G the case was handed over to the CBI. 
The first respondent along with other 4 accused 
police officers filed bail application in the Court of 
Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge rejected the bail 
H 
946 
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH v. AJIT SINGH & ANR. 
947 
application. The respondents thereafter moved the A 
application for bail in the High Court. The High Court 
granted bail to the accused. 
In the instant appeals, the appellant has challenged 
the orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the 
8 
respondents. The appellant submitted that the High Court 
has bee!"' nverly influenced by the fact that the CBI was 
not rt..!Jresented at the time when the bail application 
came up for hearing. According to the appellant, 
presence or absence of the counsel for the CBI was 
wholly irrelevant for examining the merits of the C 
application for bail. He submitted that all the accused 
being police officials, the complainant and other. 
witnesses are always under constant threat and there is 
prima facie involvement of all the accused in a case of 
false encounter. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. The allegations made against the 
respondents cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The 
E 
CBI after investigation of the matter has already submitted 
/ 
the charge sheet. According to the prosecution all the 
accused were involved in the fake encounter in which an 
innocent young man lost his life. The High court also 
· ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature 
· of the· allegations, the possibilities of undue influence 
F 
being exerted on the witnesses for the prosecution at the 
instance of the police officials. The High Court committed 
serious error in granting bail to the respondents. [Para 
10] [950-E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 748 of 2011. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2010 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Application No. 70 of 
H 
2010. 
A 
B 
c 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. . 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal Nos, 754, 752, 749, 753, 750, 751 of 2011. 
AT. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
Gopal Subramanium, S.G. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Brijender 
Chahar, Sushil Kumar, Rajat Khattry, Subramanium Prasad, 
Vinay Arora, Aditya Kumar, Vivek Kochar, S.S. Rawat, Sanjay 
Jain, Shweta Verma and Aman Ahuwalia (for Arvind Kumar 
Sharma) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In all the appeals, the original complainant has 
o challenged the separate orders passed by the High Court of 
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Application No.70 of 2010 in 
SLP(Crl.)No.3520 of 2010, Bail Application No.73 of 2010 in 
SLP(Crl.)No.3573 of 2010 Bail Application No.75 of 2010 in 
SLP(Crl.)No.3527 of 2010, Bail Application No. 46 of 2010 in 
E SLP(Crl)No.3521 of 2010, Bail Application No. 72 of 2010 in 
SLP(Crl)No.3529 of 2010, Bail Application No. 45 of 2010 in 
SLP(Crl)No.3522 of 2010, Bail Application No. 74 of ~010 in 
SLP(Crl)No.3523 of 2010 granted bail to the respondents · 
herein. 
F 
3. It is t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.