REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3520 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Ajit Singh & Anr.              …Respondents

WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3573 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.                   …Respondents

   WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3527 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

1

Nitin Chauhan & Anr.              …Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3521 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Gopal Dutt Bhatt & Anr.              …Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3529 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Rajesh Bisht & Anr.              …Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3522 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat & Anr.            …Respondents

2

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………. OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3523 of 2010)

Ravindra Pal Singh                                      … Appellant  

VERSUS

Niraj Yadav & Anr.              …Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In  all  the  appeals,  the  original  complainant  has  

challenged  the  separate  orders  passed  by  the  High  

Court  of  Uttarakhand at Nainital  in Bail  Application  

No.70  of  2010  in  SLP(Crl.)No.3520  of  2010,  Bail  

Application No.73 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.3573 of 2010  

Bail Application No.75 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.3527 of  

2010,  Bail  Application  No.  46  of  2010  in  

SLP(Crl)No.3521 of  2010,  Bail  Application  No.  72 of  

2010 in SLP(Crl)No.3529 of 2010, Bail Application No.  

45  of  2010  in  SLP(Crl)No.3522  of  2010,  Bail  

3

Application No. 74 of 2010 in SLP(Crl)No.3523 of 2010  

granted bail to the respondents herein.  

3. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased Ranbir  

Singh was a MBA student. On 2nd of July, 2009, he  

had gone to Dehradun in search of a job. On 3rd of  

July,  2009,  he  was  illegally  picked  up  by  the  

Dehradun Police. At around 3.30 on the same day, he  

was killed in cold blood by the accused police officials.  

According  to  the  post  mortem  report,  the  police  

officials fired a total of 29 bullets at the deceased, 17  

of these bullets hit the deceased at a very close range  

and 9 bullets were fired from a maximum distance of 3  

feet.  

4. On  receiving  information  from  some  media  persons  

that  his  son  had  been  shot  down  by  the  police  at  

Dehradun,  the  complainant  reached  Dehradun  and  

tried to contact the police officials. He was, however,  

threatened by one of the police officer that if he tries to  

4

interfere in the matter,  he would also be eliminated  

like his son.  

5. In the appeal,  the appellant has given details  of the  

prosecution version which are not necessary for us to  

recapitulate  at  this  stage.  After  performing  the  last  

rites  of  his  son,  the  complainant  went  back  to  

Dehradun and filed a case against the police personnel  

which  was  recorded  as  FIR  No.101/2009  dated  

6.7.2009 under Section 120B, 364, 302, 201 IPC. On  

30th July, 2009, for obvious reasons, the investigation  

of  the  case  was  handed  over  to  the  CBI,  SCB,  

Lucknow.  

6. The first respondent herein along with other 4 accused  

police officers filed bail application No.991/2009 in the  

Court of Sessions Judge, 4th FTC Dehradun for bail.    

7. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10.12.2009  

rejected  the  bail  application.  The  respondent  herein  

5

thereafter moved the application for bail  in the High  

Court.  A vacation Judge of the High Court by order  

dated 20th January, 2001 granted bail to the accused.  

Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  orders,  the  complainant,  

father  of  the  deceased,  has  moved  the  petitions  by  

special leave.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Mr.Malhotra,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

submitted that the High Court committed an error in  

granting  bail  without  any  justification.  Learned  

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  emphasised  the  

seriousness  of  the  offences  committed.  Learned  

counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that  

the High Court has been overly influenced by the fact  

that the CBI was not represented at the time when the  

bail application came up for hearing. According to the  

complainant,  presence or absence of  the counsel  for  

the CBI was wholly irrelevant for examining the merits  

of the application for bail.  He submitted that all  the  

6

accused  being  police  officials,  the  complainant  and  

other  witnesses  are  always  under  constant  threat.  

There is prima facie involvement of all the accused in a  

case of false encounter. According to the prosecution,  

not only an innocent person has been eliminated but  

efforts have been made by all concerned to cover up  

the  crime.  The  High  Court  merely  noticed  the  

submissions made by the counsel for the accused and  

arbitrarily  granted  bail.  Mr.Sushil  Kumar,  learned  

counsel  appearing for the respondents has submitted  

that there is no danger to either the complainant or  

any of  the  witnesses,  as all  the  police  officials  have  

now been posted out of the district. Learned counsel  

further submitted that a perusal of the orders passed  

in the case of some of the accused would show that  

the bail  applications were contested and vehemently  

opposed by the CBI.

10. We  have  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the  

learned counsel. We are of the considered opinion that  

7

the allegations made against the respondents cannot  

be  brushed  aside  at  this  stage.  The  CBI  after  

investigation of the matter has already submitted the  

charge  sheet.  According  to  the  prosecution  all  the  

accused were involved in the fake encounter in which  

an innocent young man lost his life. The High Court  

also ought to have taken into consideration the serious  

nature  of  the  allegations,  the  possibilities  of  undue  

influence  being  exerted  on  the  witnesses  for  the  

prosecution  at the instance of the police officials. In  

our opinion, the High Court committed serious error in  

granting bail to the respondents.  

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these  

cases,  we  allow  the  appeals  and  set  aside  the  

impugned orders of the High Court.      

……………………………..J.                                                [B.Sudershan Reddy]

8

……………………………..J.   [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi;  March 17, 2011

9