REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1150   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1523 of 2019)

 Mauji Ram  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.1151­1152  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1525­1526 of 2019)

AND CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.1153­1156 OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.4795­4798 of 2019)

                 J U D G M E N T

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

1

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 (total­7), 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

2

in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge,  Gautam Budh

Nagar in BA No. 5808 of 2018­UPGB01­

002290/2018, B.A. No.6097/2018­UPGB01­

003006/2018, B.A. No.6295/2018­UPGB01­00

3536/2018, B.A. No.6738/2018­UPGB01­00

4693/2018 & B.A. No.6739/2018 UPGB01­00

4694/2018.  These  respondents  were  apprehended

for committing the murder of one ­ Sumit Kumar ­

son of the appellant­Complainant.

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 2018­UPGB01­002290/2018, B.A.

No.6097/2018­UPGB01­003006/2018,  order  dated

22.11.2018 in B.A. No.6295/2018­UPGB01­00

3536/2018 and order dated 08.01.2019 in B.A.

No.6738/2018­UPGB01­00 4693/2018 & B.A.

3

No.6739/2018 UPGB01­00 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 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.

4

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.

5

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.

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

6

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

7

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 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,

8

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.  

           ………...................................J.  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                     ....……..................................J.

       [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; July 29, 2019.

9