Atmaram v. State of U.P.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Crl.Appeal No. 1678 of 2013 G
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]
1. Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the
Chauki-in-charge, Sheikpura Kadi, P .S. Kotwali Dehat,
Saharanpur, U.P. that on 13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, H
A namely, Kunwar Singh and other co- accused had cut the ridge
of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in an altercation
between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other persons,
namely, Rafa! Singh, lssam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif
@ Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the
B site; Kunwar Singh and Rafa! Singh were armed with Balkati
and the others with lathis. The six persons allegedly attacked
the Appellant, his sons, namely, Sanjay and Baliram and his
grandson Udaiveer all of whom suffered serious injuries. All of
them stand charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325,
c 302 1.P.C. Sanjay (deceased) suffered the following injuries:
"(i) Multiple LW 8 x 4 cm top of head into bone deep 12
cm above (eligible) root of nose CTs 6 x 8 cm.
(ii) IW 6 x 6 cm into bone deep rt side head 7 cm above
D rt ear K/W."
According to the Medical Report Injury no.(i) has been caused
by hard and blunt object and Injury no.(ii) by sharp edged object.
Although Respondent no.2 Kunwar Singh has set up an alibi,
it is not in dispute that it was he who had taken the members
E of his group to the hospital on that fateful day itself. Eventually,
he was granted bail by the impugned Order in respect of Case
Crime No.29/119 of 2011 registered for offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, l.P.C. P.S.
Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
2. On the other hand, the Additional Sessions Judge,
Saharanpur, had prior thereto noted that Kunwar Singh had
been named in the FIR, along with a specific role. The learned
Addi. Sessions Judge was obviously influenced by the fact that
G injuries on Sanjay (deceased) were on vital part of the body,
i.e., the head; that on the indication of Kunwar Singh, the Balkati
was recovered from a sugarcane field and that the unrebutted
case is that Kunwar Singh was involved in a number of cases
including four shown pending in the Gang Chart including one
H for murder and another for rape. In the view of the Additional
ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
517
Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, these were sufficient reasons to A
decline bail as transpires from his Order dated 20.5.2011.
3. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate had submitted
to the High Court, and the learned Addi. Advocate General for
the State of U.P. has similarly pressed before us, that the 8
Applicant-Respondent no.2 was armed with the reaping hook
(Balkati) and the deceased had sustained Injury no.2 allegedly
by this weapon. Moreover Respondent no.2 is involved in
several criminal cases and that if he is released on bail, he is
likely to tamper with evidence. Learned Counsel for C
Respondent no.2 has contended that all the cases in which
Respondent no.2 has been named, he has been acquitted in
two and QaS been released on bail in the third. The High Court
was impressed with the view that the occurrence has taken
place in a sudden quarrel and, therefore, there was no "pre
intention" or pre-meditation; that it has not been specified as D
to whose blow caused the incised wound being Injury no.2; that
it was difficult to decide which party was the aggressor; that
Respondent no.2, the Applicant before the High Court, was in
jail since 25.3.2011. It was in these premises that Kunwar Singh
had been granted bail on terms in the impugned Order dated E
5.9.2011.
4. In the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P.,
the criminal history of Respondent no.2 is contained in the
following table : F
S.No. Crime No. Sections Police Station District
1. 29/119/2011 Under Sec. Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
147, 148, 149,
323, 325, G
302 IPC
2. 295/2006 323, 324, 307, Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
504, 506, IPC
3. • 142/1993 3251PC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
4. 208/91 342, 323 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur H
5. 231/2008 447, 353, 504, Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
506, IPC
6. 571/2011 2/3 Gangster Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
Act
7. NCR 504, 506 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
No.176/2011
8. NCR 504, 506 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
No.37/2012
9. Crime Case Sec.3 U.P. Kotwali Dehat Saharanpu
No.54/12 Gunda Control
Act
That apart, it is the asseveration on behalf of the State of U.P.
that Respondent no.2 has been tampering with evidence by
giving threats to witnesses and that it is palpably evident that
in the impugned Order, the High Court had ignored his criminal
D antecedents as well as the specific role assigned against him
in the subject complaint.
5. Keeping the above factors in view, primarily the criminal
antecedents of Respondent no.2, we do not think that it is
E fanciful, unreasonable or irresponsible for the State of U.P. to
contend that Respondent no.2 has violated the terms of his bail
by threatening or intimidating witnesses. Even in the Affidavit
dated 27.6.2013 filed by the Circle Officer, City-II, District
Saharanpur, details of as many as ten cases in which
F Respondent no.2 is involved have been given.
6. In these circumstances, therefore, it was incorrect and
imprudent for the High Court to grant bail at least till such time
G as the examination of the eye witnesses had been completed.
The Court should not lose perspective of the fact that
intimidation of witnesses is a common occurrence at least as
regards persons who have come into conflict with the law on
multiple occasions. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set
H aside and the bail of Respondent no.2 is cancelled. His bail
ATMARAM v. STATE OF U.P.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
519
bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. He A
shall be taken into custody forthwith.
7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2013 B
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]
8. Leave granted. The Bail Orders dated 3.11.2011
passed by the High Court in favour of Rafa! Singh, Shashpal
and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish have been assailed in this c
Appeal. Earlier, another Addi. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur
had rejected their applications vide Orders dated 14.10.2011.
The alleged role ascribed to Rafa! Singh is identical in material
particulars to that of Kunwar Singh, both of whom allegedly were
armed with Balkatis. As per the Affidavit dated 27.6.2013 filed 0 on behalf of the State there are as many as fifteen cases
pending against him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
High Court erred in granting bail to the said Respondent as well.
We set aside the Order of the High Court so far as Rafa! Singh
is concerned. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the
sureties discharged, and he shall be taken into custody E
forthwith.
9. So far as Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif@ Awanish are
concerned, it appears that they were not armed with sharp
edged weapons but with lathis/dandas. Of course, it is alleged, F
so far as Sanjay (deceased} is concerned, that he had also
suffered from multiple lacerated wounds on the top of his head,
for which prima facie Shashpal and Hanish are responsible. The
State has not alleged pendency of any previous cases against
them and it is also not the prosecution case that these two G
persons have endeavoured to intimidate or influence
witnesses. For these reasons, so far as these two Respondents
are concerned, the impugned Order is not interfered with. It is,
however, made clear that if they are found to be intimidating
, or influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence the bail H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 10 S.C.R.
A granted to these respondents shall be liable to be cancelled. It
is further made clear that the observations made hereinabove
will not affect the Trial which should be conducted on its own
merit.
B 10. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.