Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against order
dated 29.8.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
3000 of 2017 granting bail to the accused—respondent No. 2
who was charged with the offence punishable under Section
302/34, IPC in Case Crime No. 376 of 2016.
The prosecution case, in brief, against Respondent No. 2
is that on the intervening night of 7th/8th September, 2016 the
accused—respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons
visited the house of complainant at about 2 am, called out his
brother Prashant (deceased) and took him away on motor
cycle in presence of eyewitnesses, on the pretext of some
urgent matter and killed him after giving severe beatings and
ran a tractor over the deceased after placing him on a cot. On
a hue and cry made by the eyewitnesses, the accused ran
away from the spot. The motive behind committing the crime
is allegedly linked to previous financial transactions between
the accused and the deceased. The FIR was registered against
the accused at the instance of complainant—appellant herein
at 7.30 a.m. on 8th September, 2016 for offences punishable
under Section 302/34, IPC. The Investigating Officer made
recoveries from the spot of occurrence and postmortem of
deceased was done wherein the cause of death was specified
as due to shock and hemorrhage.
The initial bail application moved by Respondent No. 2
before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed with
the observations that there were eight ante mortem injuries on
the body of the deceased and the offence being of a serious
nature. The accused—respondent No. 2 then moved the High
Court, and by the order impugned herein, the High Court
granted him bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant—complainant
submitted that the High Court has simply granted bail to the
accused without following the basic principles of criminal law.
Totally ignoring the evidentiary value of the prosecution case
and the seriousness of allegations levelled against the
respondent No.2 who brutally killed the deceased and
inhumanly ran the tractor over him in presence of
eyewitnesses, the High Court allowed his bail application and
thereby put the life of the appellant and his family members at
risk. Ever since the accused released on bail, the
complainant’s family is being threatened with dire
consequences if they depose against the accused. Learned
counsel further submitted that since the trial is at evidence
stage, in all probability, the accused will tamper and weaken
the prosecution case with constant threats to the eyewitnesses
and therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order
passed by the High Court .
Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supported the
order passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused.
We have also heard learned senior counsel appearing for
the State and perused the counter affidavit wherein it is
believed by the State that the High Court was not justified in
granting bail to the accused—respondent No.2. We are
constrained to observe that though it is the responsibility of
the State to protect the victims and contest the case against
accused, in the instant matter, the State did not bother to
take effective steps. Not only it failed to file a petition seeking
cancellation of bail against the accused, the State remained
negligent and did not even feel it necessary to enter
appearance and contest the matter. It is only after this Court
took serious view and directed the State on 29th October, 2018
calling the Principal Secretary (Law) to muster his presence
and explain the reasons, the State entered appearance and
filed counter affidavit on November 3, 2018 i.e. more than a
year after issuing notice on 30th October, 2017.
Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State made an attempt to assure this Court that henceforth,
he will ensure appearance of State counsel in all matters and
also timely filing of counter affidavits. However, we are not
satisfied with the mere oral assurance and therefore, while
expressing our displeasure, we direct the Chief Secretary as
well as the Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh to
file affidavits within four weeks from today, indicating therein
the steps which they are going to take to avoid recurrence of
such negligence by the State.
From the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is evident
that subsequent to the instant crime, another Case Crime No.
512 of 2017, dated 30.09.2017 has also been registered in
police station Dibiyapur against the accused—respondent No.
2, under Section 506, IPC for threatening the complainant—
appellant putting pressure on him to withdraw the instant
case. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that if the
accused—Respondent No. 2 is granted bail, there is likelihood
of influencing the eyewitnesses.
Having heard learned counsel, we have also perused the
material on record. The High Court, unfortunately, passed the
impugned order in a casual way granting bail to the accused –
respondent No.2 without assigning any valid and proper
reason. Taking note of that and upon considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary and
therefore cancel the bail granted by the High Court to the
accused – respondent No.2. Considering the fact that the trial
is going on, it is not proper for us to give more details about
the case.
We direct the trial Court to speed up the trial and dispose
of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. The accused—respondent No. 2 is at liberty to file fresh
application for bail before the trial Court, after sometime.
Needless to say that if such an application is filed, the trial
Court will consider the same on its own merits, uninfluenced
by any observations made by this Court.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Registry is directed to place before this Court soon after
the affidavits are filed by the Chief Secretary as well as
Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh.
New Delhi, November 13, 2018