caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Sudha Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 April, 2021Author: Hon’Ble The Justice
Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, Hon’Ble The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2021
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3577 0F 2020)
SUDHA SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a criminal appeal filed against the order of the
Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused who has
been arrested with respect to the offence punishable under
Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986.
3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased victim namely
Rajnarain Singh who has been allegedly murdered by the
accused, who is Respondent No. 2 herein, in conspiracy
with others. A First Information Report bearing Case Crime
Number 200 of 2015, P.S.-Sodhari, Distt.- Azamgarh, was
1
registered in that regard and a charge sheet for offences
under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was filed
against the accused. The accused is alleged to be a
contract killer and a sharpshooter. In fact, previously, the
accused has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for serious
offences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal
conspiracy.
4. According to the prosecution, the accused along with
other persons operate an organized crime gang in
Azamgarh that allegedly commits offences punishable
under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the Indian Penal Code. The
very purpose of the gang is to make physical and financial
gains by committing innumerable crimes of serious nature.
It is also stated that this gang instills extreme fear and
terror in the area where it operates thereby precluding
persons from coming forward and lodging police complaints
against its activities, or for that matter deposing in cases
pertaining thereof.
5. By the order impugned in this criminal appeal, the
Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused herein on
2
very liberal terms, such as the execution of a personal bond
to the satisfaction of the jail Authorities and the furnishing
of sureties within a month of his release. The High court has
simply ignored the antecedents of the accused and the
potential to repeat his acts by organising his criminal
activities.
6. It is stated by the appellant, who is the wife of the
deceased victim that the conduct of the accused during the
trial of the case in Case No. 511 of 2016 has been one of
non cooperation, by not cross examining the witnesses
first, then praying for their recall and then threatening
witnesses through his henchmen. In fact, the conduct of the
accused impelled the Sessions court to direct the police to
provide security in the court during the trial and provide
security to the witnesses.
7. It is also contended by the appellant that the grant of
bail in a routine manner to gangsters, has had an adverse
effect in the past, upon the law and order situation. The
appellant cites the example of a person who was
prosecuted in connection with 64 criminal cases which
included cases of murders, offences of dacoity, criminal
3
intimidation, extortion and offences under the UP-Gangster
Act, etc., but who was released on bail. Ultimately, when a
police team went to apprehend him in a case, allegedly 8
policemen were killed and many grievously injured.
Therefore, the appellant contends that courts must be
extremely careful in releasing of history sheeters who have
been charged with serious offences like murder, rape or
other kinds of bodily harms
several times.
8. We find in this case that the high court has
overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to
witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is
needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is
important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail
with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the
parties before them and the incident in question. It is
necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of
such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be
examined and the innocent members of the family of the
victim who might be the next victims.
4
9. This Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P.1 held
that when a stand was taken that the accused was a history
sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise
every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused
was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
10. In Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh 2, this Court
observed that when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful
life and heinous offences were obstructions in the
establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an
even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It
emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the
criminal antecedents of the accused.
11. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee
and Another3, it was held that this Court ordinarily would
not interfere with a High Court’s order granting or rejecting
bail to an accused. Nonetheless, it was equally imperative
for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a
1
(2014) 16 SCC 508
2
(2012) 9 SCC 446
3
(2010) 14 SCC 496
5
catena of decisions of this Court. The factors laid down in
the judgment were:
(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the
offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
granted bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
12. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that
of a person charged with crime but it is important for the
courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and
liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on
bail.
13. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the
order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the
accused.
6
……………………………..CJI.
[S.A. BOBDE]
……………………………….J.
[A.S. BOPANNA]
………………………………..J.
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]
New Delhi
April 23, 2021
7
Comments