Justice Satish Chandra Sharma granted leave against the bail granted by the High Court due to the heinous nature of the offence committed by the accused. The Supreme Court assailed the correctness of the decision of the High Court of Allahabad.
On January 2, 2022, around 3:30 PM, the Appellant, his uncle Jitendra Singh, and their driver Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when they were stopped by the accused individuals, including Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal. The accused verbally abused Jitendra Singh and then proceeded to shatter the vehicle windows with iron rods. They dragged Jitendra Singh out of the vehicle and assaulted him with iron rods, hockey sticks, and bats with the intention to kill him. The Appellant and Rahul tried to intervene but were also injured. The accused then stole mobile phones and a gold chain before fleeing the scene. Jitendra Singh was taken to various hospitals but unfortunately succumbed to his injuries on February 10, 2022.On February 10, 2022, an inquest report was prepared for the Deceased, noting injuries on his head, hand, and knee. Additionally, a post-mortem examination revealed four major ante mortem head injuries. The cause of death was determined to be in coma resulting from these head injuries.
A chargesheet came to be filed in relation to the FIR on 14.03.2022 under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872
(“IPC”) read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act ,2013 against both the co accused. Respondent No. 2’s initial bail application was denied by the Trial Court, but they were successful in securing bail through an application filed with the High Court, as per the Impugned Order.Punit Pal’s initial bail application was also denied by the Trial Court, but they later succeeded in obtaining bail through an application filed with the High Court, as indicated by the order dated 31.10.2023.
The Appellant herein i.e., the Original Complainant filed the present appeals assailing the correctness of the order(s) passed by the High Court enlarging (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii)
Punit Pal on bail in relation to the FIR.
Supreme Court after listening to both the parties stated that it is established that granting bail is a discretionary power that shouldn’t be exercised arbitrarily. Therefore, it’s crucial to evaluate the High Court’s orders granting bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal in light of this principle, considering the circumstances surrounding the FIR.Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal face serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including but not limited to, Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302, and 120B, based on evidence such as the post-mortem report and witness statements. Additionally, there are allegations on two occasions that they attempted to intimidate the appellant and other identified witnesses in an effort to obstruct the trial. These factors should be carefully considered when evaluating their bail applications.
Based on the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused persons, and the impact of the crime on society, particularly considering the broad daylight murder and the subsequent closure of a market for a prolonged period, Supreme Court believed that the High Court should not have granted bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal in relation to the proceedings stemming from the FIR.
The appeals are allowed by the Supreme Court. The bail bonds of accused Vivek Pal alias Vikki Pal and Punit Pal are cancelled, and they are to be taken into custody immediately. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Trial Court and PS Lalganj, Basti, Uttar Pradesh for necessary action. The Trial Court is instructed to conclude the trial promptly, preferably within one year from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment.
CASE TITLE : RAMAYAN SINGH VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR,SLP (Crl.) No(s). 14988 of 2023
Written by: Ayesha Hussain, College name : Surendranath Law College, 4th year B.A.LL.B(HONS), Intern under Legal Vidhiya
REFERENCES
JyYXJ5L2p1ZGdtZW50cy9hbm5vdW5jZW1lbnQucGhwP1dJRD0xNzUwNw
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/19223/19223_2023_8_1501_52334_
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