The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna & Justice V Ramasubramanian while setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a person accused with respect to the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Act”), has observed that the Courts while granting bail should recognise the potential threat to life & liberty of Victim/Witnesses. (Sudha Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others)
The Bench observed, “There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.”
Facts of the case
A criminal appeal was filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court (HC) that granted bail to the accused who has been arrested with respect to the offense punishable under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The appellant is the wife of a deceased victim who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. A First Information Report was registered in that regard and a charge sheet for offenses under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused.
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
The accused is alleged to be a contract killer and a sharpshooter. The accused has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for serious offenses including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy.
In the appeal it was mentioned that the Court has ignored the antecedents of the accused and the potential to repeat his acts by organizing his criminal activities.
Contention of the Parties
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
The appellant contended that the conduct of the accused during the trial of the case has been one of non-cooperation, by not cross examining the witnesses first, then praying for their recall and then threatening witnesses through his henchmen. In fact, the conduct of the accused impelled the Sessions court to direct the police to provide security in the court during the trial and provide security to the witnesses.
It was also contended by the appellant that the grant of bail in a routine manner to gangsters, has had an adverse effect in the past, upon the law and order situation. The appellant cites the example of a person who was prosecuted in connection with 64 criminal cases which included cases of murders, offences of dacoity, criminal intimidation, extortion and offences under the UP-Gangster Act, etc., but who was released on bail. Ultimately, when a police team went to apprehend him in a case, allegedly 8 policemen were killed and many grievously injured. Therefore, the appellant contends that courts must be extremely careful in releasing of history sheeters who have been charged with serious offences like murder, rape or other kinds of bodily harms several times
Courts observation & Judgment
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
The Bench thereafter observed that the High Court had overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection.
The Court further in this regard observed, “It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.”
The Court made reference to the Apex Court judgement in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 in which it was observed that when a stand was taken that the accused was a history sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgement in Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 in which it was observed that when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal antecedents of the accused.
The Court thereafter, by allowing the appeal set aside the order of Allahabad High Court granting bail.
0 Comments