http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  969-972 of 2008

PETITIONER: JAGDISH  

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/05/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.1912-1915/2008]

1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 20.9.2007, 15.11.2007,   22.11.2007 & 13.12.2007 granting bail to various accused persons who are facing trial  under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.   

3.      Our attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the Judges of the Allahabad  High Court by an order dated 17.4.2007 refused to grant bail to the accused ’Johny’  stating : \023The applicant and co-accused demanded ransom. The applicant and  co-accused had assembled to collect ransom amount and were arrested  by the police. The recovery of dead body of victim a eight year old boy  was made in pursuance of joint disclosure statement of applicant and  co-accused five days after the abduction. The charge sheet has been  submitted after the investigation. The applicant being involved in the  case of abduction and killing of eight year old boy, I do not consider it  to be a fit case for bail.\024

4.      According to Mr. Jain, however, suppressing the  said fact, Sewa Ram applied for  grant of bail which was granted by another learned Judge by an order dated  20.9.2007.  Thereafter, the applications for bail filed by Johny, Neetu, Sumer Chand  and Bablu have been allowed. It was submitted that had the fact of rejection of bail  application of ’Johny’ been brought to the notice of the Court while considering the  bail application filed by Sewa Ram, the same would have been rejected.   

5.      Our attention was, furthermore, drawn to the fact that even during the trial, the  respondents have been threatening the appellant and his family members. Our  attention in this behalf has been drawn to a report filed on 9.2.2008 under Sections  107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the First Information Report,  lodged during the pendency of this special leave petition, in relation to an occurrence  which took place at about 9.00 a.m. on 2.5.2008, alleging that threat of causing death  and injury to the father and brother of Vikram has been extended by Neetu and  others which amounted to commit offence under Section 506 of the IPC.   

6.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, have drawn our  attention to the following facts:

       (1) That Johny in his second application has categorically stated about the rejectio n  of his earlier bail application.  In the connected matter, all the accused have been  acquitted.         (2) There was sufficient evidence brought on record to show that at least Sumer  Chand and Bablu have been falsely implicated, particularly in view of the fact that  Bablu has been a handicapped person, which fact has been taken note of by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

learned Fast Track Court while passing the judgment dated 22.8.2007 in Sessions  Case No. 162/2007.

7.      The trial is nearly complete. It is expected to be over by July, 2008.  

8.      We do not intend to enter into the merit of the matter, although the learned counsel   for the parties have taken us through not only the judgment of the learned Fast Track  Court in the aforementioned sessions trial, but also to the deposition of the informant  in the instant case.  

9.      Certain basic principles as regards interference with the order granting bail and an   application for cancellation of bail, can never be lost sight of. Although  the impugned  orders are not very reasoned ones, it appears that the relevant facts had been taken  note of. It also appears that so far as ’Johny’ is concerned, he was not guilty of any  suppression of fact. It may be true that after grant of bail to Sewa Ram, wherein the  learned Public Prosecutor might not have drawn the attention of the Court to the  order dated 17.4.2007 passed by another learned Judge, the same by itself may not be  a ground for interference with the impugned orders.

10.     We, therefore, are of the opinion that although it is not necessary to  interfere with the impugned judgments at this stage, interest of justice demands that if  the prosecution witnesses have not been examined, they may be given requisite  protection if any occasion arises therefor.        

11.     The State, indisputably, would be entitled to proceed with the investigation  in regard to the subsequent First Information Report lodged during the pendency of  this appeal, namely, First Information Report No. 102/2008.  It would also be open to  the concerned Magistrate to proceed in the matter arising out of the report filed by  the appellant under Section 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. on 9.10.2008.

12.     It also goes without saying that the State or the appellant, if any occasion  arises therefor, would be entitled to file application for cancellation of bail under sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

13.     The appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned observation.