JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI versus SUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 505, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI
v.
SUBRAHMANYA & ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Bail – Cancellation of – High Court granted bail to accused
persons – Original complainant has preferred appeal before the
Supreme Court for cancellation of bail and submitted that in a case
of co- accused, Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.39/2022 by judgment
and order dated 06.01.2022 had cancelled the bail order and set
aside a similar order passed by the High Court – Held: In view of
the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 06.01.2022
passed in Crl.A.No.39/2022, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in the instant case releasing accused on
bail deserve to be quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.120(B), 302, 201, 34 IPC – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 27(3) .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1439 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad in Criminal Petition No. 101007 of 2021.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2022.
Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, S. K. Pandey, Awanish Kumar,
Anshul Rai, Abhinav Garg, D. Girish Kumar, Kumar Vinayakam Gupta
for M /s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) dated 10.06.2021 & 08.11.2021 passed by
the
High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in Criminal Petition Nos.
101007/2021 & 101621/2021 respectively, by which the High Court has
allowed the said criminal petitions preferred by the accused Subrahmanya
and Rajesh (respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals) and has directed
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 505
505
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
to release the accused - Subrahmanya and Rajesh on bail in connection
with Case Crime No. 157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959,
the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –
complainant has vehemently submitted that while directing the accused
- respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals to be released on bail, the
High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offences. It is
submitted that the High Court has not at all considered the fact that in
the present case that there are two eye-witnesses and respondent No. 1
– accused has been identified.
2.1 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that in case of co-accused, namely, Umesh Nagappa
URF Sangappa, this Court vide judgment and order dated
06.01.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022 has set aside the
similar order passed by the High Court releasing the said co-
accused on bail and has consequently cancelled the bail order.
2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
supported the appellant.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant as well as the State. Though served, none has appeared on
behalf of the accused - respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals. We
have
perused the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High
Court releasing the accused on bail. Even liberty is reserved to the State
to move for cancellation of bail in the event of this Court cancelling the
bail of accused No. 4 - Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case of co-
accused, namely, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, who was also
released on bail by the High Court, this Court vide judgment and order in
Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022 has set aside the order passed by the High
Court and has consequently cancelled the bail order in favour of the co-
accused. The grounds on which the said co-accused was released on
bail and the grounds on which the present respondent No. 1 –
Subrahmanya is released on bail are same. In paragraph 7, the High
Court has observed as under: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
“7. As per the charge-sheet, CWs. 18 and 19 are eye-
witnesses to the incident. CW-19 who is running tea shop near
the spot has identified accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 in Test Identification
Parade held on 31.10.2019. The police took accused Nos. 1, 2
and 4 on 29.09.2019 to different places like Dandeli, Haliyal and
Dharwad and taken their photographs. Therefore, the photographs
of accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 were available with the police and
there are every chances of the police showing them to the
witnesses namely CW-19. CW-18 is another eyewitness, who is
the driver of the vehicle of the deceased, who has also identified
accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 in the Test Identification Parade and there
are also chances of the police showing the photographs of the
accused to CW-18 prior to Test Identification Parade. Even if the
presence of the petitioner/accused No.5 is taken into consideration,
there is no overt act alleged against him. He was sitting on bike
and the overt act alleged is against accused No.1, who fired from
the pistol to the deceased and went away on the motorcycle along
with the accused Nos. 2 and 4. Therefore, there is no specific
overt act alleged against the petitioner/accused No.4”
That thereafter this Court has set aside the order passed by the
High Court by observing in paragraphs 6 to 8 as under:
“6. By observing the above, virtually the High Court has
acquitted the accused. The observations made by the High Court
in para 7 are on surmises and
conjectures and the High Court has
observed that there might have been the chances of the witnesses
showing them the accused before the T.I. Parade. The fact
remains that the accused have been identified in a T.I. Parade by
CWs. 18 & 19, who are eyewitnesses to the incident.
7. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity of
the offence while releasing the respondent No.1-accused on bail.
Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the High Court
releasing the Respondent No.1 on bail is unsustainable and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present Appeal succeeds. The impugned order passed by the
High Court in releasing the accused on bail in connection with
Crime No. 157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station is hereby
quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.1 now to surrender
JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI v. SUBRAHMANYA &
ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
before the competent authority/appropriate jail authority within a
period of one week from today.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in judgment
and order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022, the
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court releasing
the accused – Subrahmanya and Rajesh, respondent No. 1 herein in the
respective appeals on bail also deserve to be quashed and set aside. At
this stage, it is required to be noted that while releasing the accused
Rajesh on bail the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has
observed that in case this Court cancels the bail granted in favour of
accused no. 4 – Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa it would be open for
the State to move an appropriate application for cancellation of the bail.
Therefore, once the bail in favour of Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa
has been cancelled by this Court, the bail in the present case also requires
to be cancelled.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeals succeed. The impugned judgments and orders passed
by the High Court releasing the accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh,
respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals on bail in connection with
Case Crime No. 157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959
are hereby quashed and set
aside. Accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh
are now directed to surrender before the competent authority/appropriate
jail authority within a period of two weeks from today. If the accused
Subrahmanya & Rajesh do not surrender within a period of two weeks
from today, the concerned police authority is directed to arrest the
accused Subrahmanya and Rajesh and the learned Trial Court to issue
non-bailable warrant against them.
7. However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court to decide
and dispose of the trial in accordance with law and on its own merits on
the basis of the evidence led before it and without, in any way, influenced
by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) which otherwise are set aside by the present
order.
With this, the present Appeals are allowed.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)