IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1452-1455 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5956-5959 of 2008)

Association of Victims of Uphar Tragedy       ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Gopal Ansal & Anr. Etc. Etc.       ...Respondent(s)

W I T H

Criminal Appeal Nos.1456-1457 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6244-6245 of 2008)

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4391 of 2008

O  R  D  E  R

Criminal Appeal Nos.1452-55 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5956-5959 of 2008) Criminal Appeal Nos.1456-57 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6244-6245 of 2008

Leave granted.

Heard Shri  K.T.S.  Tulsi,  learned senior counsel  appearing  on behalf  of

Association  of  Victims  of  Uphar  Tragedy  [hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the

Association”],  Shri  Gopal  Subramaniam,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General

appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Shri Fali S. Nariman and

Shri Uday U. Lalit, learned  senior

....2/-

- 2 -  

counsel appearing on behalf  of Shri Sushil  Ansal,  Shri D.A. Dave, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf  of Shri Gopal Ansal and Shri Sushil  Kumar, learned

senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  Shri  Nirmal  Singh  Chopra  and  Shri  Ajit

Chaudhary.   

A perusal of the record shows that the trial Court convicted accused Shri

Gopal Ansal and Shri Sushil Ansal under Section 304-A read with Section 36 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”] and sentenced them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rupees

five thousand each and in  default,  to  undergo simple  imprisonment for  a further

period of six months.  They have been further convicted under Section 337 read with

Section 36 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months.  They have been also convicted under Section 338 read with Section 36 I.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.   They

have been then convicted under Section 14 of the Delhi Cinematograph Act, 1952 and

sentenced to pay fine of Rupees one thousand each and in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused Shri Nirmal Singh Chopra and Shri

Ajit Chaudhary have been convicted under Section 304 read with Section 36 I.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to

pay fine of Rupees five thousand each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment

for a further period of six months.   

Against their convictions and sentences, the aforesaid four accused persons

preferred regular appeals before the High Court, which have been duly admitted, and

pending hearing of the appeals, all of them have been ordered to be released on bail.

....3/-

- 3 -  

In criminal  appeals  filed  by the Association,  prayer has been made for

setting  aside  the  orders  granting  bail  to  all  the  aforesaid  four  accused  persons

whereas in criminal appeals filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation,

prayer has been made for setting aside the orders granting bail to accused Shri Ajit

Chaudhary and Shri Nirmal Singh Chopra.  During the course of arguments, Shri

Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General, made a statement that he

joins  the  prayer  made  on  behalf  of  the  Association  for  setting  aside  the  orders

granting bail even to Shri Sushil Ansal and Shri Gopal Ansal.   

We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at  length,  perused  the

voluminous record and gave our anxious consideration to the entire matter.

Ordinarily,  we  would  have  disposed  of  these  appeals  by  recording  a

detailed  order,  but  keeping  in  view  the  fact  that  the  appeals  preferred  by  the

aforementioned four persons and others who were convicted by the trial Court are

pending hearing before the High Court and any expression of opinion on the merits of

the  case  is  likely  to  prejudice  the  case  of  either  of  the  parties,  we  refrain  from

adopting that course.  However, in the facts and circumstances of  the case,  we are

convinced that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to Shri Nirmal Singh

Chopra and Shri Ajit Chaudhary, who have been convicted under Section 304 read

with Section 36 I.P.C.   

So far as Shri Sushil Ansal and Shri Gopal Ansal are concerned, we are of

the view that even though they have been convicted under Section 304-A read with

Section 36 I.P.C., Section 337 read with Section 36 I.P.C. and Section 338 read with

Section 36 I.P.C. and it is well settled that in an appeal against conviction under these

sections, the  offences

...4/-

- 4 -  

being bailable, bail is granted without much ado but, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, especially in view of the conduct of these accused persons after grant

of bail during trial, the High Court was not justified in granting bail to them.   

Accordingly,  the appeals  are allowed,  impugned orders granting bail  to

S/Shri Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, Nirmal Singh Chopra and Ajit Chaudhary are set

aside, bail bonds furnished by them during the pendency of these appeals pursuant to

the orders of this Court are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the

trial  Court  at  Patiala  House,  New  Delhi,  latest  by  4.00  p.m.  tomorrow,  i.e.  11th

September, 2008, to serve out the remaining period of sentence.           

It  is,  however,  made  clear  that  this  order  shall  not,  in  any  manner,

prejudice the case of any of the accused persons in the appeals which are pending

before the High Court or the case arising out of F.I.R. No.207/2006 dated 17th  May,

2006, P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi, which is pending trial before the Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

Having regard  to the  facts  of  this  case  we  feel  that  it  would  be  in  the

interest of justice that the appeals pending before the High Court are disposed of with

utmost  expedition.   We  are  told  that  the  learned  Single  Judge  who  is  presently

hearing the appeals is not in a position to devote full time as he is in-charge of the

original jurisdiction.  Therefore, it would be appropriate that the appeals are placed

before any other appropriate learned Judge nominated by the learned Chief Justice

of Delhi High Court.   

...5/-

- 5 -  

Learned  counsel  for  the  parties  agree  that  the  hearing  of  the  appeals

should be taken up on day-to-day basis.    Accordingly,  we direct that the appeals

pending before the High Court  shall  be  taken up for  hearing by another learned

Judge, so nominated by the learned Chief Justice.  Court shall hear the appeals on

day-to-day basis for whole day. At the conclusion of hearing, judgment in the appeals

is expected to be delivered as expeditiously as possible.   

Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.4391 of 2008 :

Heard  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner,  Central

Bureau of Investigation and the Association.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.  

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 10, 2008.