Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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