Kerala HC: Can’t Condone Delay in Approaching Revision Authority Under Income Tax Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Scope of Judicial Review in Contractual Matters is Extremely Limited  ||  Bom. HC: Release of Film ‘Hamare Baarah’ Permitted After Agreement on Deletion of Certain Portions  ||  All. HC: Without Magistrate’s Permission, Investigation into Non-Cognizable Offence Illegal  ||  Himachal Pradesh High Court: Timeline Cannot be Imposed on Speakers to Decide Resignations of MLAs  ||  Ker. HC: In Quashing Proc. Courts to Look at All Circumstances to See if Case Initiated With Malice  ||  Kar. HC: Women Epicentres of Family Life, Deserve Preferential Treatment in Matters Relating to Bail  ||  Ker. HC: Order Holding Malabar Parota Similar to Bread and Exigible at 5% GST, Stayed  ||  Special Lok Adalat to be Organized by the Supreme Court from July 29  ||  Cal. HC: Bengal Govt. to Ensure Reservation in all Public Employment to Transgender Persons    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved