| CITATION | AIRONLINE 2021 SC 140 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 8 MARCH , 2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court |
| APPELLANT | Girraj |
| RESPONDENT | Kiranpal |
| BENCH | M R Shah J , Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J |
INTRODUCTION
This case is a criminal case related to rejection of bail application previously approved by Allahabad High Court by exercising its discretion under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court granted five special leave petitions filed under section 136 of the Constitution seeking the denial of bail for five individuals implicated in a murder case. This case fundamentally revolves around the High Court’s discretionary authority in granting bail in accordance with section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case deals with charges related to murder and subsequent rejection of bail application by Supreme Court. An FIR was filed on 30 November 2019 against the five accused respondents namely Kiranpal, Sundar, Rakesh, and Satish & Dharmendra under sections 147, 302, 307, 323, 342 & 508 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 at police station Rabupura, district Gautam Budh Nagar. They were charged with the murder of appellant’s i.e. Girraj’s two sons namely Gajendra aged 34 years and Akash aged 22 years on the night of 29 November 2019. There were total eight accused but only five were arrested and after investigation charge sheet was made. One of the co-accused Narendra not included in the current petition was granted bail by the High Court of Allahabad on 5 August 2020 & therefore all the other accused seeked bail on the ground of parity and consequently the bail was granted by the Allahabad High Court and they all were released. Afterwards the bail granted to Narendar was challenged by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court and the court rejected the bail setting it aside on 11 December 2020 and also disapproved the grounds on the basis of which bail was granted by the High Court of Allahabad. It strongly asserted that relevant points were ignored by the High Court while deciding the bail application.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether bail be granted on the grounds of parity?
- Whether the High Court ignored relevant grounds for granting while exercising its discretion under section 439 of CrPC?
- Whether the High Court relied on extraneous grounds for granting bail?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- Learned counsel Mr Rajiv Garg was appearing on the behalf of the appellants.
- He argued that as all the accused relied on the order passed by High Court in the case of Narendra for seeking bail. They should also respect and follow the order rejecting the same bail application passed by Supreme Court.
- This reasoning of Mr Rajiv Garg was supported by the state through Mr Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDEN
- Learned senior counsel Mr Rajul Bhargava was appearing on the behalf of accused-respondent. He while arguing in support of the accused persons pinpointed the difference in factual information in FIR filed & the reports furnished by the Kailash Hospital & Yatharth Hospital regarding circumstances & location of the incident.
- There was a subtle difference in factual information in the FIR filed and the reports given by the two hospitals.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that a serious offense of murder resulting in death of two sons of the appellant has been committed by the accused. The grounds on the basis of which bail was granted to Narendra are not to the point because they didn’t took into account the background of rivalry between the two groups on account of party politics. Remark of the High Court that all the accused did the firing and hence the exact person who caused the murder cannot be ascertained was also immaterial. On this account the Supreme Court had revoked the bail application of Narendra on 11 December 2020. As other respondent-accused were granted bail by High Court of Allahabad on the basis of same reasoning on the ground of parity their bail was also cancelled by the Supreme Court and they were instructed to surrender within 24 hours of uploading the copy of judgment on Supreme Court website if they intended to submit a fresh bail application in the High Court in future.
ANALYSIS
After going through the facts of the case the judgment was given by the Supreme Court rejecting bail application of all the five respondents-accused. The court criticized the reasoning adopted by the High Court. It set aside the bail granted to Narendra by stating that the bail was `contrary to the settled legal principles’. It also said that the decision in Narendra’s case was also contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Panchanan Mishra v Digambar Mishra. It also said that as the bail of Narendra stands cancelled all the other accused seeking bail on the similar ground as that of Narendra should be denied bail and as result the bail application of all the respondents was cancelled by the apex court.
CONCLUSION
This case basically dealt with the power of the High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail under section 439 of CrPC. It stated that extraneous circumstances should be avoided while exercising discretion under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is a good precedent for interpretation of section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.
REFERENCES
- Indiankanoon
- Indian Employees
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/girraj-versus-kiranpal-and-anr-etc
This Article is written by Pushkarni Nandkumar Bhagwat student of DES’s.Shri.Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments