Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

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 2023 - All Rights Reserved