SUNIL KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
229
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 229
229
SUNIL KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2022)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Bail – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Respondent No.2 and
other accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and
killed the elder brother of informant- appellant – Deceased was
fired at, and also assaulted with danda and lathi – Respondent
no.2 was a history-sheeter and having criminal antecedents – He
was also allegedly involved in murder of informant’s father and
younger brother – Trial of these cases were at the crucial stage of
recording of evidence, and there were allegations of the informant
and the witnesses being pressurised by respondent no.2 – Judgment
of High Court releasing respondent No.2 on bail – Held: Not
justified – No reasons whatsoever was assigned by the High Court
while releasing respondent no.2 on bail – High Court did not advert
to the relevant considerations for grant of bail and also did not
consider the criminal antecedents of respondent no.2 even when so
pointed out on behalf of the informant – High Court did not consider
the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged –
Respondent no.2 directed to surrender forthwith – IPC – ss.147,
148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 – Arms Act –
s.27.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it can be seen that no reasons whatsoever
have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the
respondent No.2 on bail. After recording the submissions made
by the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the State
thereafter the High Court has only observed that “considering
the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to
accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Prayer for the bail of the petitioner is allowed.” There is no further
reasoning given at all. Neither the High Court has considered
the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against
the accused. [Para 7][235-C-E]
2. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not
considering the material relevant to the determination of whether
the accused was to be enlarged on bail. Even the High Court has
also not at all considered the criminal antecedents of the
respondent No.2 - accused. Though it was pointed out on behalf
of the informant that the accused is involved in two cases and
that the appellant (informant) was restrained from proceeding
further in earlier cases pending against the accused, the High
Court has simply brushed aside the same and has not considered
the same at all. The High Court has noted the submission on
behalf of the accused that one other accused has been released
on bail. However, the High Court has not at all considered
whether the case of the said other accused is similar to that of
the respondent No.2-accused or not. It appears that the High
Court has passed the order mechanically and in a most perfunctory
manner. [Paras 9, 10][237-G; 238-A-D]
3. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 is a history
sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in
the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the
informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of
recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the
informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail
is absolutely unsustainable. The High Court has not at all
considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences
alleged. [Para 11][239-B-C]
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana (Koli) and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 230;
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019]
14 SCR 529; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR 195; and Neeru
Yadav v. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015]
10 SCR 802 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another, 2021
(13) SCALE 38 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 6 SCC 230
relied on
Para 3.1
[2019] 14 SCR 529
relied on
Para 3.1
2021 (13) SCALE 38
referred to
Para 3.2
[2017] 11 SCR 195
relied on
Para 3.3
[2015] 10 SCR 802
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.95 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.