Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

MANOJ KUMAR Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND Respondent(s)

ANOTHER

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave is directed against order

dated 29.8.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

3000 of 2017 granting bail to the accused—respondent No. 2

who was charged with the offence punishable under Section

302/34, IPC in Case Crime No. 376 of 2016.

The prosecution case, in brief, against Respondent No. 2

is that on the intervening night of 7 th/8th September, 2016 the

accused—respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons

visited the house of complainant at about 2 am, called out his

brother Prashant (deceased) and took him away on motor

cycle in presence of eyewitnesses, on the pretext of some 2

urgent matter and killed him after giving severe beatings and

ran a tractor over the deceased after placing him on a cot. On

a hue and cry made by the eyewitnesses, the accused ran

away from the spot. The motive behind committing the crime

is allegedly linked to previous financial transactions between

the accused and the deceased. The FIR was registered against

the accused at the instance of complainant—appellant herein

at 7.30 a.m. on 8th September, 2016 for offences punishable

under Section 302/34, IPC. The Investigating Officer made

recoveries from the spot of occurrence and postmortem of

deceased was done wherein the cause of death was specified

as due to shock and hemorrhage.

The initial bail application moved by Respondent No. 2

before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed with

the observations that there were eight ante mortem injuries on

the body of the deceased and the offence being of a serious

nature. The accused—respondent No. 2 then moved the High

Court, and by the order impugned herein, the High Court

granted him bail.

Learned counsel for the appellant—complainant

submitted that the High Court has simply granted bail to the 3

accused without following the basic principles of criminal law.

Totally ignoring the evidentiary value of the prosecution case

and the seriousness of allegations levelled against the

respondent No.2 who brutally killed the deceased and

inhumanly ran the tractor over him in presence of

eyewitnesses, the High Court allowed his bail application and

thereby put the life of the appellant and his family members at

risk. Ever since the accused released on bail, the

complainant’s family is being threatened with dire

consequences if they depose against the accused. Learned

counsel further submitted that since the trial is at evidence

stage, in all probability, the accused will tamper and weaken

the prosecution case with constant threats to the eyewitnesses

and therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order

passed by the High Court .

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supported the

order passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused.

We have also heard learned senior counsel appearing for

the State and perused the counter affidavit wherein it is

believed by the State that the High Court was not justified in

granting bail to the accused—respondent No.2. We are 4

constrained to observe that though it is the responsibility of

the State to protect the victims and contest the case against

accused, in the instant matter, the State did not bother to

take effective steps. Not only it failed to file a petition seeking

cancellation of bail against the accused, the State remained

negligent and did not even feel it necessary to enter

appearance and contest the matter. It is only after this Court

took serious view and directed the State on 29 th October, 2018

calling the Principal Secretary (Law) to muster his presence

and explain the reasons, the State entered appearance and

filed counter affidavit on November 3, 2018 i.e. more than a

year after issuing notice on 30th October, 2017.

Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the

State made an attempt to assure this Court that henceforth,

he will ensure appearance of State counsel in all matters and

also timely filing of counter affidavits. However, we are not

satisfied with the mere oral assurance and therefore, while

expressing our displeasure, we direct the Chief Secretary as

well as the Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh to

file affidavits within four weeks from today, indicating therein

the steps which they are going to take to avoid recurrence of 5

such negligence by the State.

From the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is evident

that subsequent to the instant crime, another Case Crime No.

512 of 2017, dated 30.09.2017 has also been registered in

police station Dibiyapur against the accused—respondent No.

2, under Section 506, IPC for threatening the complainant—

appellant putting pressure on him to withdraw the instant

case. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that if the

accused—Respondent No. 2 is granted bail, there is likelihood

of influencing the eyewitnesses.

Having heard learned counsel, we have also perused the

material on record. The High Court, unfortunately, passed the

impugned order in a casual way granting bail to the accused –

respondent No.2 without assigning any valid and proper

reason. Taking note of that and upon considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary and

therefore cancel the bail granted by the High Court to the

accused – respondent No.2. Considering the fact that the trial

is going on, it is not proper for us to give more details about

the case.

We direct the trial Court to speed up the trial and dispose 6

of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. The accused—respondent No. 2 is at liberty to file fresh

application for bail before the trial Court, after sometime.

Needless to say that if such an application is filed, the trial

Court will consider the same on its own merits, uninfluenced

by any observations made by this Court.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Registry is directed to place before this Court soon after

the affidavits are filed by the Chief Secretary as well as

Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh.

…...........................................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

..…………………........................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

New Delhi, November 13, 2018