(N.V. Ramana, C.J. and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
Mukesh Kumar _____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of U.P. and Another _________________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal Nos. 662-663/2021 (@S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 3515-3516/2021), decided on July 22, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 – State of U.P., leaned counsel appearing for Accused Nos. 3 and 2 (Bhagat Alias Harsh Gil & Shubham) and carefully perused the record.
4. These appeals are filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to Accused Nos. 3 and 2 by the High Court.
5. The facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are as follows:—
“That on 28-6-2020 an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 131 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC, came to be registered at P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut on the information of the petitioner. It was stated in the F.I.R. by the informant that on 28-6-2020, the informant and his son Vishal (the deceased) were returning to their home along with his brother Shailesh Kumar and nephew Umang on motorcycle and around 7.30 pm when they reached 200 metres away from Karnawal Gate towards their village Karnawal, five accused persons Monu, Bhagat, Shubham, Shivam and Chirag came from behind and while abusing Vishal, pulled him from the motorcycle and shot him in head with fire arms, killing the victim on the spot and fled away. The accused persons had previous quarrel with Vishal.“
6. Appellant’s statement as well as statements of eye-witnesses were recorded in the course of investigation.
7. The High Court initially on 1-10-2020 granted bail to Accused No. 3 – Bhagat alias Harsh Gil. Thereafter, the High Court vide Order dated 3-12-2020 granted bail to Accused No. 2 – Shubham on the basis of parity.
8. The impugned Orders passed the High Court granting bail to Accused Nos. 3 and 2 do not indicate application of mind. The said Orders also do not even refer to the facts of the case and the reasons for grant of bail.
9. It is a case under Section 302 IPC where the incident had taken place on 28-6-2020 and in a case of present nature, within a period of three months time, the High Court felt that it is a case for grant of bail. In this matter, it is alleged that apart from committing murder of the deceased, the accused persons used the fire arms also which is a relevant aspect during consideration of bail applications.
10. As per the claim of the appellant – complainant, the Accused No. 3 is having criminal antecedents also and is involved in another offence under Sections 363/366 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The complainant further states that after grant of bail to Accused Nos. 3 and 2, they are threatening the complainant and other witnesses.
11. We find that the counter affidavit is filed by the State of U.P. in this matter and they are supporting the claim of the appellant – complainant.
12. After taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case for cancellation of bail.
13. Accordingly, we cancel the bail granted to Accused Nos. 3 and 2 and direct them to surrender before the concerned Trial Court.
14. The appeals are allowed in the afore-stated terms.
15. Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3515-3516/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-10-2020 in CRMBA No. 28973/2020 and order dated 03-12-2020 in CRMBA No. 41821/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
Mukesh Kumar.….Petitioner(s)
v.
State of U.P. & Anr. Etc.….Respondent(s)
(IA No. 57042/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 57043/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date: 22-07-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before N.V. Ramana, C.J. and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.
Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR
Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Aamir Dabas, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, AAG, UP
Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR
Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Javed Muzaffar, Adv.
Mr. Adeel Talib, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
16. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
17. Leave granted.
18. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
19. Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed of.
———
