Ram Murti Sharma vs State Of U.P.

2024 INSC 250 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……………OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 10254 OF 2023)

RAM MURTI SHARMA … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The order1 passed by the High Court2 in the bail application3,

whereby the respondent no.2 has been directed to be released on bail, is

challenged by the complainant.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.03.23 11:22:24 IST Reason: 1 Dated 03.08.2023 2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 3 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4895 of 2023

Page 1 of 4

3. Brief facts are that an FIR No.733 of 20224 was registered on the

complaint of the appellant-complainant alleging murder of his son.

During investigation involvement of respondent no.2 was found. He was

taken into custody on 15.06.2022. The bail application5 filed by him was

dismissed by the Sessions Judge6 on 23.09.2022, while recording the

reasons in detail. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, bail application was

filed by the respondent no.2 before the High Court. The same was

allowed on 03.08.2023, directing release of the respondent no.2 on bail.

It is the aforesaid order which is impugned before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted that

while directing release of the respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has

failed to consider the relevant facts, which clearly led to his involvement

in the crime. Merely, after briefly noticing the stand taken by the parties,

the bail application was allowed by the High Court. The same is totally in

contravention of the law laid down by this Court in terms of which reasons,

in brief, are required to the given.

4 Dated 12.06.2022 with the P.S. Indirapuram, Dist. Ghaziabad 5 Bail Application No.5754/2022 6 Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad

Page 2 of 4

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-State supported the

stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though, the order

of the High Court has not been challenged by the State as such.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2

submitted that it is a case in which the respondent no.2 is not named in

the FIR. He had already suffered incarceration for approximately one

year and two months. The High Court, after considering relevant

materials and keeping in view the fact that any detailed finding would

have prejudiced the case of other side, directed the release of the

respondent no.2 on bail. There is nothing pointed out regarding the

conduct of the respondent no.2 after he was released on bail. It should

be considered as a relevant factor at this stage in the present appeal

seeking cancellation of the bail, granted to the respondent no.2.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the paper book.

8. The respondent no.2 in the case in hand is involved in heinous

crime where murder of the son of the appellant-complainant had taken

place. Respondent no.2 was not named in the FIR. However, when the

matter was investigated in detail, the police could gather evidence

pointing out involvement of the respondent no.2 in crime. The material

Page 3 of 4 collected was discussed in detail by the Sessions Judge while rejecting

the bail application of the respondent no.2. However, the High Court

merely noticing the arguments raised primarily by the counsel for the

respondent no.2 has directed for his release on bail, which in our opinion

cannot be legally sustained.

9. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The respondent

no.2 is granted three weeks' time to surrender. We make it clear that

nothing in the above said order shall prejudice the respondent no.2 in any

subsequent proceedings relating to the crime. The above order shall not

debar the respondent no.2 from filing a fresh bail application at any

subsequent stage, which shall be considered by the court concerned on

its own merits.

……………….……………..J. (SUDHANSU DHULIA)

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL) New Delhi March 22, 2024.

Page 4 of 4