SUDHA VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 24-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUDHA VERMA 
v. 
STA TE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
AUGUST 24, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND ALT AMAS KABIR,JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.439-Bail-Allegation of cold blooded murder of elder brother by the 
C accused-High Court granting not only bail but also opining that case fell 
under s.304 (Part-Jl) !PC as there was sudden quarrel and no motive to 
kill-Justification of-Held: Not justified-While dealing with bail 
application, Court should only indicate whether there was a prima facie case 
in view of settled principles about nature of crime and manner of commission 
D of offence-Matter remitted to High Court to consider bail application afresh. 
s.439-Bail-Grant of-Determining factors-Stated. 
Prosecution case was that some time prior to the incident, there was 
tension in the family on the issue of partition amongst deceased, his father 
E and the two brothers i.e. respondent no.2 and accused. Appellant was wife of 
deceased. On the fateful day, father of respondent No.2 told brother of appellant 
about the tense situation and asked him to immediately come. The two brothers 
of appellant rushed to the place. 
The father and the two sons i.e. respondent No.2 and the accused were 
F sitting in a room inside the house and talking about the partition and 
distribution of property. Suddenly, the father became extremely excited and 
took out his licensed revolver and became offensive towards the deceased. 
Immediately, respondent No.2 picked up the lic~nsed gun which was lying in 
a corner of the room, loaded the same and fired a shot at the deceased who 
G sustained grievous injuries on his vital organs. 
H 
He was rushed to hospital. On the way, he succumbed to injuries. The 
FIR was lodged against deceased's father and respondent No.2 by appellants' 
brothers. The two accused absconded for more than 2 months before their 
surrender. The co-accused was granted bail by Sessions Judge. Thereafter, 
314 
).. 
SUDHA VERMA v. STA TEOFU.P. 
315 
respondent No.2 and other criminals tried to compel the appellant to enter A 
into a compromise. An FIR in this regard was lodged by the appellant with 
the police authorities. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed bail application before 
the High Court. The High Court not only granted bail but recorded a finding 
that the case fell within the ambit of s.304 Part II IPC. 
Appellant was aggrieved with the grant of bail and filed the present B 
appeal. According to appellant, even after release on bail, respondent No.2 
and his father wanted to get the case finished and for this they assaulted the 
appellant physically and an FIR was lodged by brother of the appellant in this 
context 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court to c 
consider bail application afresh, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima 
facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused 
was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the D 
courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other 
circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail which are: The 
nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and 
the nature of supporting evidence; Reasonable apprehension of tampering of 
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; Prima facie 
satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 
E 
[Para 121 (319-B, C, DJ 
Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Anr., (2007) 5 SCALE 639; 
Omar Usman Chamadia "·Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176; VD. 
Chaudhury v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2005) 7 SCALE 68; lmran 
Ali v. Habibullah and Anr., (2007) 4 SCALE 610 and State of UP. Through F 
CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, relied on. 
2. The High Court has not indicated as to what is the relevance of grant 
of bail to co-accused ignoring that the respondent No.2 was the alleged 
assailant who fired the gun and killed the deceased. Strangely the conclusions, 
that there was no motive or there was a sudden quarrel appear to have been G 
arrived at without any discussion and/or without reference to any particular 
material. Bail granted to respondent No.2 by the High Court is cancelled. 
""! 
[Para 15) (320-G; 321-A, BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 
2007. 
H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at All
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.