Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Rajasthan

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1343­44 OF 2023 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos. 012669 ­ 012670 / 2022)

Rahul Gupta ...Appellants(s)

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr. Etc. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by

the High Court of Judicate for Rajasthan

Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.05.04 2363/2022 and S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail 16:38:36 IST Reason: Page 1 of 6 Application No. 10068/2022, by which, the

High Court has directed to enlarge original

accused – private respondents herein on bail

in connection with FIR No. 474/2021

registered at Police Station Kotwali, District

Dholpur for the offences under Sections 302,

307, 201, 120­B of IPC, the original

complainant/informant has preferred the

present appeals.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that

private respondents – accused have been

chargesheeted after investigation for the

offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120­B

of the IPC. Despite the above and without

taking into consideration any of the material

forming part of the chargesheet and without

even considering the seriousness of the

offences alleged; material collected during the

Page 2 of 6 investigation, the High Court has by a non­

speaking order has directed to release the

accused – private respondents herein on bail

by further observing that there is a possibility

that trial may take long time to conclude. In a

case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC

in which one person was guilty, the High

Court ought to have taken into consideration

the material collected during the

investigation. From the impugned order

passed by the High Court, it appears that the

only observations made by the High Court are

in paragraph 4 which reads as under: ­ “4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.”

When the accused are chargesheeted

after the investigation, the High Court ought

Page 3 of 6 to have taken note of and/or considered the

material collected during the investigation

even to find out whether there is any material

collected during the investigation involving

the accused for the serious offence under

Section 302 of IPC and therefore, whether it

is a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail or

not. Under the circumstances, the impugned

order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be

quashed and set aside and the matter is

required to be remitted back to the High

Court to decide the bail applications afresh.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

original accused has submitted that wife of

accused – Sunil Gupta is suffering from brain

haemorrhage. It will be open for the accused

to prayer for interim bail and/or seek bail on

Page 4 of 6 that ground which may be considered by the

High Court in accordance with law and on its

own merits.

4. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, the present appeals succeed.

The impugned order passed by the High

Court releasing private respondents herein –

original accused on bail is hereby quashed

and set aside. Original accused are directed

to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail

authority within a period of 10 days from

today and thereafter, the High Court to decide

and dispose of the bail application(s) afresh in

accordance with law and on its own merits

and after perusing and/or taking into

consideration the material/evidence collected

during the investigation which are now a part

Page 5 of 6 of the chargesheet and upon taking into

consideration the relevant aspects which are

required to be kept in mind while examining

the prayer for bail.

After surrender, the High Court on

remand to decide and dispose of the bail

application(s) as observed hereinabove at the

earliest. With this the present appeals are

allowed.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

………………………………….J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] NEW DELHI;

MAY 04, 2023

Page 6 of 6