MAUJI RAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 321, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
MAUJI RAM
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1150 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 439 – Bail –  In a murder case  – Denied by Sessions Court
–  Allowed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court by complainant
– Held: Though it may not be necessary to give categorical finding
while granting or rejecting bail, yet it must appear from the order
that court has applied its mind – In the present case High Court
committed jurisdictional error as it did not assign any reason for
granting the bail  – In the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for
grant of bail  – Bail.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though it may not be necessary to give
categorical finding while granting or rejecting the bail for want of
full evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the defence
at that stage, yet it must appear from a perusal of the order that
the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of
the material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration
of bail application.  It is unfortunate that neither the law laid down
by this Court, nor the material filed by the prosecution was taken
note of by the High Court while considering the grant of bail to
the respondents. [Para 13] [325-C-D]
2. The High Court committed jurisdictional error in
passing the impugned order because the High Court did not
assign any reason whatsoever as to on what grounds,
even though
of a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bail
to the respondents. [Para 12] [325-B]
3. Having perused the FIR and keeping in view the
antecedents of the accused persons which are brought on record
by the State in their counter affidavit and further keeping in view
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 321
  321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
the manner in which the offence under Section 302 IPC was
committed, the Court is prima facie of the view that this is not a
fit case for grant of bail to the accused persons. These factors
were relevant while considering the bail application and, they
were not taken into consideration. [Para 15] [325-F-G]
4.  Taking into consideration the entire scenario of the case,
this was not a fit case for grant of bail to the respondents(accused
persons) by the High Court. The Sessions Judge, was,
therefore, right in rejecting the bail applications filed by the
respondents. [Para 17] [326-B]
Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) 7
SCC 507 ; Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
(2008) 16 SCC 753 : [2008] 14 SCR 980 ;
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC
22 : [2018] 1 SCR 882 –   relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2005) 7 SCC 507
     relied on
Para 13
[2008] 14 SCR 980
     relied on
Para 13
[2018] 1 SCR 882
     relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1150 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1859 of
2019
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1151-1152, 1153-1156 of 2019.
Rishi Malhotra,  Adv. for the Appellant.
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Pranshu Kaushal,
Mr.Sandeep Singh, Adnan Siddiqui, Suhit K. Sharma, Sarvesh Singh
Baghel, Puny Garg, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17.01.2019
in CRMBA No.1859 of 2019, dated 24.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3574/
2019, dated 29.01.2019 in CRMBA No.3547/2019, dated 06.02.2019 in
CRMBA No.4627/2019, dated 18.02.2019 in CRMBA No.6450/2019,
dated 12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated 26.03.2019
in CRMBA No.11793 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these
appeals, which involve a short point.
4. Respondent No.2 in all the appeals, namely, Subhash, Kartar,
Sohit, Amarjeet, Soran Bhati, Lilu@Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total-
7), herein after collectively referred to as “respondents”  are facing trial
for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149,
302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506  and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)  which  arise out of Crime No. 608/
2018 registered with P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP)
pending in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge,  Gautam Budh Nagar in BA
No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-UPGB01-
003006/2018, B.A. No.6295/2018-UPGB01-00 3536/2018, B.A.
No.6738/2018-UPGB01-00 4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01-
00 4694/2018. These respondents were apprehended for committing the
murder of one - Sumit Kumar - son of the appellant-Complainant.
5. The respondents (accused
persons) after they were
apprehended applied for grant of bail before the Sessions Court in the
aforementioned trial. The Sessions Judge by order dated 20.11.2018 in
BA No. 5808 of 2018-UPGB01-002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018-
UPGB01-003006/2018, order dated 22.11.2018 in B.A. No.6295/2018-
UPGB01-00 3536/2018 and order dated 08.01.2019 in B.A. No.6738/
2018-UPGB01-00 4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01-00 4694/
2018 rejected the bail applications of the respondents.
6. The respondents felt aggrieved by the rejection of their bail
applications and filed the bail applications under Section 439 of the
MAUJI RAM  v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)
in the High Court of Allahabad. By impugned orders, the High Court
allowed the bail applications and accordingly directed release of the
respondents on bail on their furnishing security and bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
7. It is against these orders of the High Court, the father of the
deceased has felt aggrieved and filed these appeals questioning the
legality and correctness of the impugned orders.
8. So far as the State is concerned, they have supported the
appellant by filing counter affidavit. The respondents (accused persons)
are also served and duly represented.
9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in these
appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the
respondents (accused).
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals and
while setting aside the impugned orders dismiss the bail applications filed
by the respondents(accused persons).
The impugned order reads as
under:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Subhash involved in Case Crime No.608
of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 427, 307,
302, 120B IPC,
P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the
trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the
applicant.”
12. In our considered opinion, the High Court committed
jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order because while passing
the impugned order, the High Court did not assign any reason whatsoever
as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature,   it
considered just and proper to grant bail to the respondents.
13. Time and again this Court has emphasized the need for assigning
the reasons while granting bail (see Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. &
Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 753 & Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,
(2018) 3 SCC 22). Though it may not be necessary to give categorical
finding while granting or rejecting the bail for want of full evidence
adduced by the prosecution as also by the defence at that stage yet it
must appear from a perusal of the order that the Court has applied its
mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material filed by the
prosecution at the time of consideration of bail application.  It is unfortunate
that neither the law laid down by this Court, nor the material filed by the
prosecution was taken note of by the High Court while considering the
grant of bail to the respondents.
14. We have perused the petitions with annexures, the counter
affidavit with annexures filed by the State and also by the accused
persons.
15.
Having perused the FIR and keeping in view the antecedents
of the accused persons which are brought on record by the State in their
counter affidavit and further keeping in view the manner in which the
offence under Section 302 IPC was committed, we are prima facie of
the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused persons
(respondent No.2 herein in all the appeals). These factors were relevant
while considering the bail application and, in our view, they were not
taken into consideration.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents (accused persons)
vehemently opposed the appeals and urged that having regard to the
totality of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the
case and the fact that the respondents (accused persons) have not
MAUJI RAM  v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
violated any condition of grant of bail till date, this Court should not
interfere in the impugned orders granting bail to the respondents.
17. We do not agree with this submission. In our view, taking into
consideration the entire scenario of the case, this was not a fit case for
grant of bail to the respondents(accused persons) by the High Court.
The Sessions Judge,  in our opinion, was, therefore, right in rejecting the
bail applications filed by the respondents.
18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed
and are hereby allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The bail
applications filed by the respondents (accused persons) are dismissed.
19. As a consequence thereof, the respondents(accused persons)
in all the appeals are directed to surrender in the concerned Sessions
Court for being taken into custody as under trial.
20. We, however, make it clear that the Sessions Judge will decide
the trial strictly in accordance with law on its merits expeditiously without
being influenced by any observation made in this order.
Kalpana  K. Tripathy
                               Appeals allowed.