Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Nitu Kumar vs. Gulveer & Anr. - (Supreme Court) (16 Sep 2022)

Gravity and seriousness of the offence is relevant consideration for grant of bail

MANU/SC/1186/2022

Criminal

The original complainant has preferred the present appeal dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which, the High Court has directed to release Respondent No. 1 – accused on bail in connection with Case Crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

It can be seen that nothing has been discussed by the High Court on the role attributed to Respondent No. 1 – accused and his overt act in commission of the offence. The High Court has not appreciated that there is an eye witness, who has categorically stated that Respondent No. 1 caught hold of the deceased. The High Court ought to have appreciated that if Respondent No. 1 would not have caught hold of the deceased, it would not have been possible for the co- accused Shekhar to cause injuries on the deceased. Therefore, the High Court ought to have appreciated that the role attributed to Respondent No. 1 can be said to be very serious like co-¬accused Shekhar.

As per the settled position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. The High Court was required to consider the gravity and the seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations against Respondent No. 1 – accused. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1 on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is unsustainable. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1 accused on bail in Case Crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is quashed and set aside.

Now, Respondent No. 1¬ Gulveer – accused shall surrender before the concerned Court/Jail authority forthwith failing which he be arrested by issuing non-¬bailable warrant. However, it is observed that the learned Trial Court to conduct the trial in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led before it. Appeal allowed.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved