Nitu Kumar vs Gulveer

Nitu Kumar …Appellant(s) Versus Gulveer & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 11120 of 2022, by which, the High Court

has directed to release respondent No. 1 – accused on bail

in connection with Case Crime No. 80 of 2021 for the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of Police Station

Signature Not Verified Rohata, District Meerut, the original complainant has Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.16 15:18:41 IST Reason: preferred the present appeal.

1

2. That on 19.06.2021, on the report of the informant – Nitu

Kumar, an FIR being Case Crime No. 80/2021 under

Section 302 IPC of Police Station Rohata, District Meerut,

came to be registered against accused Shekhar, Gulveer

(respondent No. 1 herein) and one another person. During

the course of the investigation, statement of eye­witness –

Narender has been recorded. In his statement under

Section 161 Cr.P.C., a specific role has been attributed to

respondent No. 1 that he caught hold of the deceased and

the co­accused Shekhar caused the injury on the neck of

the deceased. In the FIR, the motive was also alleged. That

respondent No. 1 came to be arrested on 24.06.2021. On

conclusion of the investigation and based on the

statements of informant, witnesses and on the basis of

evidence collected during the investigation, a chargesheet

has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC.

2.1 Respondent No. 1 – Gulveer filed a bail application before

the learned Trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the said bail application. Then, respondent No.

1 – Gulveer filed the present bail application before the

2 High Court. Before the High Court, it was mainly

contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 – accused that

the only role attributed to him is catching hold of the

deceased and the main role of causing injuries to the

deceased is assigned to the co­accused Shekhar. By the

impugned judgment and order without considering

seriousness and gravity of the offence committed and the

role attributed to respondent No. 1 – accused and without

assigning any reason and only by observing that

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties

and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of

the accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the FIR,

statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made

out a case for bail” the High Court has released respondent

No. 1 on bail.

2.2 From the aforesaid it can be seen that nothing has been

discussed by the High Court on the role attributed to

3 respondent No. 1 – accused and his overt act in

commission of the offence. The High Court has not

appreciated that there is an eye witness, who has

categorically stated that respondent No. 1 caught hold of

the deceased. The High Court ought to have appreciated

that if respondent No. 1 would not have caught hold of the

deceased it would not have been possible for the co­

accused Shekhar to cause injuries on the deceased.

Therefore, the High Court ought to have appreciated that

the role attributed to respondent No. 1 can be said to be

very serious like co­accused Shekhar. As per the settled

position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a

relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. The

High Court was required to consider the gravity and the

seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations

against respondent No. 1 – accused. Under the

circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1 on bail for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is

unsustainable.

4

3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1

­ accused on bail in Case Crime No. 80/2021 of Police

Station Rohata, District Meerut for the offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.

4. Now, respondent No. 1­ Gulveer – accused shall surrender

before the concerned Court/Jail authority forthwith failing

which he be arrested by issuing non­bailable warrant.

However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court to

conduct the trial in accordance with law and on its own

merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it. The

present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid

extent. No costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]

5