2019 INSC 0609
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1150   OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1523 of 2019)
 
Mauji Ram  ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.       ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.1151­1152  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1525­1526 of 2019)
AND
CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.1153­1156 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.4795­4798 of 2019)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   orders
dated   17.01.2019   in   CRMBA   No.1859   of   2019,
dated   24.01.2019   in   CRMBA   No.3574/2019,   dated
1

29.01.2019   in   CRMBA   No.3547/2019,   dated
06.02.2019   in   CRMBA   No.4627/2019,   dated
18.02.2019   in   CRMBA   No.6450/2019,   dated
12.03.2019 in CRMBA No.10626 of 2019 and dated
26.03.2019   in   CRMBA   No.11793   of   2019   of   the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
3. A   few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the
disposal   of   these   appeals,   which   involve   a   short
point.
4. Respondent   No.2   in   all   the   appeals,   namely,
Subhash,   Kartar,   Sohit,   Amarjeet,   Soran   Bhati,
Lilu@Mahendra and Ashu @ Ashish (total­7), herein
after   collectively   referred   to   as   “respondents”     are
facing   trial   for   commission   of   the   offences
punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 302, 120­
B, 307, 323, 506  and 427 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)   which   arise
out   of   Crime   No.   608/2018   registered   with   P.S.
Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP) pending
2

in the Court of I/C Sessions Judge,   Gautam Budh
Nagar   in   BA   No.   5808   of   2018­UPGB01­
002290/2018,   B.A.   No.6097/2018­UPGB01­
003006/2018,   B.A.   No.6295/2018­UPGB01­00
3536/2018,   B.A.   No.6738/2018­UPGB01­00
4693/2018   &   B.A.   No.6739/2018   UPGB01­00
4694/2018.   These   respondents   were   apprehended
for   committing   the   murder   of   one   ­   Sumit   Kumar   ­
son of the appellant­Complainant.
5. The   respondents   (accused   persons)   after   they
were   apprehended   applied   for   grant   of   bail   before
the Sessions Court in the aforementioned trial. The
Sessions   Judge   by   order   dated   20.11.2018   in   BA
No.   5808   of   2018­UPGB01­002290/2018,   B.A.
No.6097/2018­UPGB01­003006/2018,   order   dated
22.11.2018   in   B.A.   No.6295/2018­UPGB01­00
3536/2018   and   order   dated   08.01.2019   in   B.A.
No.6738/2018­UPGB01­00   4693/2018   &   B.A.
3

No.6739/2018   UPGB01­00   4694/2018   rejected   the
bail applications of the respondents.  
6. The respondents felt aggrieved by the rejection
of   their   bail   applications   and   filed   the   bail
applications   under   Section   439   of   the   Criminal
Procedure   Code,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
“the   Code”)   in   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad.   By
impugned   orders,   the   High   Court   allowed   the   bail
applications   and  accordingly  directed  release  of  the
respondents on bail on their furnishing security and
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
7. It is against these orders of the High Court, the
father   of   the   deceased   has   felt   aggrieved   and   filed
these   appeals   questioning   the   legality   and
correctness of the impugned orders. 
8. So   far   as   the   State   is   concerned,   they   have
supported   the   appellant   by   filing   counter   affidavit.
The   respondents   (accused   persons)   are   also   served
and duly represented.
4

9. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court   was   justified   in   granting   bail   to   the
respondents (accused). 
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are   constrained   to   allow   the   appeals   and   while
setting   aside   the   impugned   orders   dismiss   the   bail
applications   filed   by   the   respondents(accused
persons). The impugned order reads as under:
“ Considering   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the   case   and   without   expressing   any   opinion
on   the   merits   of   the   case,   I   find   it   a   fit  case
for bail.
Let   the   applicant   Subhash   involved   in   Case
Crime   No.608   of   2018   under   Sections   147,
148, 149, 323, 506, 427, 307, 302, 120B IPC,
P.S.   Dadri,   District   Gautam   Budh   Nagar   be
released   on   bail   on   his   furnishing   a   personal
bond   with   two   sureties   each   in   the   like
amount   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   Court
concerned with the following conditions:
1. The   applicant   will   not   tamper   with   the
evidence.
5

2. He   shall   not   pressurize/intimidate   the
prosecution   witnesses   and   shall
cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall appear on each and every date
fixed   by   the   trial   court   unless   personal
appearance   is   exempted   by   the   court
concerned.
In   case   of   breach   of   any   conditions
mentioned   above,   the   trial   court   shall   be   at
liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.” 
12 . In   our   considered   opinion,   the   High   Court
committed   jurisdictional   error   in   passing   the
impugned   order   because   while   passing   the
impugned order, the High Court did not assign any
reason   whatsoever   as   to   on   what   grounds,   even
though   of   a   prima   facie   nature,       it   considered   just
and proper to grant bail to the respondents.
13. Time and again this Court has emphasized the
need   for   assigning   the   reasons   while   granting   bail
(see   Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(2005) 7 SCC 507,   Lokesh Singh  vs. State  of U.P.
&   Anr.,   (2008)   16   SCC   753   &   Dataram   Singh   vs.
State   of   U.P.   &   Anr.,   (2018)  3   SCC   22).   Though   it
may   not   be   necessary   to   give   categorical   finding
6

while   granting   or   rejecting   the   bail   for   want   of   full
evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the
defence   at   that   stage   yet   it   must   appear   from   a
perusal   of   the   order   that   the   Court   has   applied   its
mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material
filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration
of   bail   application.     It   is   unfortunate   that   neither
the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court,   nor   the   material
filed   by   the   prosecution   was   taken   note   of   by   the
High Court while considering the grant of bail to the
respondents.
14. We have perused the petitions with annexures,
the   counter   affidavit   with   annexures   filed   by   the
State and also by the accused persons. 
15. Having   perused   the   FIR   and   keeping   in   view
the   antecedents   of   the   accused   persons   which   are
brought   on   record   by   the   State   in   their   counter
affidavit and further keeping in view the manner in
which   the   offence   under   Section   302   IPC   was
7

committed,   we   are   prima   facie   of   the   view   that   this
is   not   a   fit   case   for   grant   of   bail   to   the   accused
persons (respondent No.2 herein in all the appeals).
These   factors   were   relevant   while   considering   the
bail   application   and,   in   our   view,   they   were   not
taken into consideration. 
16. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   (accused
persons) vehemently opposed the appeals and urged
that   having   regard   to   the   totality   of   the   facts   and
circumstances emerging from the record of the case
and the fact that the respondents (accused persons)
have   not   violated   any   condition   of   grant   of   bail   till
date,   this   Court   should   not   interfere   in   the
impugned orders granting bail to the respondents.
17. We   do   not   agree   with   this   submission.   In   our
view, taking into consideration the entire scenario of
the  case, this  was not  a  fit case for  grant  of bail  to
the   respondents(accused   persons)   by   the   High
Court.     The   Sessions   Judge,     in   our   opinion,   was,
8

therefore,   right   in   rejecting   the   bail   applications
filed by the respondents.  
18. In   the   light   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the
appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. Impugned
orders   are   set   aside.   The   bail   applications   filed   by
the respondents (accused persons) are dismissed.
19. As   a   consequence   thereof,   the
respondents(accused persons) in all the appeals are
directed   to   surrender   in   the   concerned   Sessions
Court for being taken into custody as under trial.
20. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   the   Sessions
Judge   will   decide   the   trial   strictly   in   accordance
with   law   on   its   merits   expeditiously   without   being
influenced by any observation made in this order. 
             ………...................................J.
  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                         
         
....……..................................J.
        [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
July 29, 2019.
9