SITA RAM versus BALBIR@ BALI & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 24-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 12 S.C.R. 165 
SITA RAM 
v. 
BALBIR@ BALI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 24, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
BAIL: 
A 
B 
Cancellation of bail -- A group of 30-35 persons led by c 
first respondent, armed with lathis and firearms causing death 
of one person and injuries to others - High Court granting 
anticipatory bail to first respondent - Held: Additional 
Sessions Judge has found prima facie case against first 
respondent and other accused -- Incident had caused public 0 
panic in the area - First respondent is a very influential person 
in the area -- Moreover, his antecedents are such that a 
reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with 
witnesses or to carry out threats is imminent and omnipresent 
--The severity of the attack and leading role of first respondent 
E 
should not be overlooked - In the circumstances, the 
impugned order is set aside and bail granted to first 
respondent is cancelled - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 109, 114, 
148, 302, 307, 323, 325 rlw s.149 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.25 
and 27. 
F 
The complainant-appellant was first accosted by 
respondent no. 1 over collection of donation from the 
former and when he reported the matter to police, 
respondent no. 1 with 30-35 supporters armed with lathis 
and firearms went to his shop and wielded lathis and also 
G 
opened fire causing death of one person and injuries to 
several others. The Addi. Sessions Judge rejected the 
bail application of respondent no. 1, but the single Judge 
of the High Court granted him bail. Aggrieved, the 
165 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A complainant filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant/informant has mentioned in 
the FIR the names of respondent no.1 as also other 
B accused persons and the fact that they were armed with 
lathis and firearms and they opened fire leading to 
firearms injuries to several persons and death of the 
brother-in-law of the informant. The incident had caused 
public panic in the area, as is evident from contemporary 
c newspaper reports. Respondent no.1, is an ex-MLA and 
is indubitably a very influential person in the area. The 
Addi. Sessions Judge has found existence of a prima 
facie case u/ss 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC and 
ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against all the accused and 
D in addition to this, a prima facie case u/ss 302 and 109 
IPC and 25 of Arms Act against respondent no. 1. [para 
4 and 5] [168-D-F; 169-8-D] 
1.2 Keeping all the factors in perspective, especially 
the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there 
E is a strong prima facie case of the involvement of 
respondent no.1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover, the 
antecedents of respondent no.1 are such that a 
reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with 
witnesses carrying out threats is imminent and •
F omnipresent. The severity of the attack and leading role 
• 
• 
of respondent no. 1 should not be overlooked. For these 
• • 
manifold reasons, the impugned order is set aside and 
I 
the bail granted to respondent no.1 is cancelled. [para 6] 
[169-E-G] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1834 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2013 of the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. 
H No. M-40691/12 (O&M). 
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI & ANR. 
167 
Rishi Malhotra for the Appellant. 
P.S. Patwalia, Ashutosh Chugh, Parthiv K. Goswami, 
Diksha Rai, Deep Karan Dalal, Dr. Monika Gusain for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
B 
2. The Appellant, who is the informant in FIR No.141 dated 
6.5.2011 at Police Station, Kalanaur, District Rohtak, for 
C 
offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 148, 302, 307, 
323 and 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 
of the Arms Ad, assails the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013 
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granting bail 
to Respondent no.1, namely, Balbir@ Bali. The learned Single 
D 
Judge has been impressed by the fact that the injuries on 
deceased Vishnu (Brother-in-law of the AppellanVlnformant), as 
mentioned in the FSL Report, had been caused by a high 
speed bullet projectile fired most probably from a .315 bore 
standard rifle which, according to the version in the FIR, was 
not the weapon carried by Balbir/Respondent no.1. The learned 
E 
Judge has also noted that the six witnesses examined under 
Sec

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