The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ashwani Kumar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1695 OF 2022

Bohatti Devi …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4095 of 2022 by which

the High Court has released the respondent No. 2 accused on bail in

connection with the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B

IPC, the original complainant (now the State) has preferred the present

appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 is Signature Not Verified

SNEHA facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. Having Digitally signed by Date: 2022.09.30 16:26:18 IST Reason:

gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, it can be seen that the 1 High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity of the

offence alleged against the respondent No. 2. Even the High Court has

not considered the relevant material forming the charge sheet. No

cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the

respondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a

very serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.

2.1 The High Court has also not considered the fact that earlier the

respondent No. 2 – accused initiated the proceedings before the High

Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him by filing an

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by

the High Court. The High Court has also not considered that the special

leave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court rejecting

the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also got dismissed by this

Court. The High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a

non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent No. 2 – accused

and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021. All the aforesaid

aspects, which are very material and/or relevant while considering the

prayer for bail have been ignored by the High Court while releasing the

respondent No. 2 on bail.

2.2 From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the High

Court has considered the enlargement on bail to the co-accused Vicky

and Sarvesh @ Mangal. However, the High Court while considering the 2 parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-accused

and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent

No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed

and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent

No. 2 - accused on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 1069 of 2014

for the offence under Sections 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Baraut, District

Baghpat is hereby quashed and set aside.

Now, the respondent No.2 to surrender before the concerned Jail

Authority / Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which,

non-bailable warrant be issued against him. However, it is observed that

the learned Trial Court to conduct the trial in accordance with law and on

merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it and without in any

way being influenced by the present order as any observations made in

the present order are while considering the bail application.

Present appeal is allowed accordingly.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI] 3