2021 INSC 0830
                                                                REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2021   
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3285/2021)
Laxman Prasad Pandey                .…Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.           ….  Respondent(s)
WITH
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6611/2021   
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6569/2021   
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1552 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.3226/2021   
CRL.APPEAL NOs. 1554­1555 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5605­
5606/2021   
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1553 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.5539/2021   
CRL.APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2021 @ SLP(Crl) No.6061/2021   
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1

1. The   three   appeals   of   the   first   set,   all   titled   Laxman
Prasad   Pandey   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   &   Ors.   bearing
Criminal   Appeal   No.1551/2021   (arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)
No.3285/2021);   Criminal   Appeal   No.1554­1555/2021
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5605­5606/2021) and Criminal
Appeal   No.1553/2021   (arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)   No.
5539/2021)   arise   against   the   orders   dated   16.03.2021,
17.12.2020   and   19.03.2021   and   26.07.2021   passed   by   the
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   of
Allahabad,   Lucknow   Bench,   Lucknow   in   Bail   Application
No.1694   of   2021,   Bail   Application   No.9559   of   2020,   Bail
Application No. 11 of 2021 and Bail Application No.3876 of
2021.   The   accused   in   the   above   said   cases   are   Anjani
Kumar   Shukla,   Rahul   @   Monu   Tiwari   and   Raj   Kumar
Maurya. 
2. The second set of four appeals, titled Laxman Prasad
Pandey   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   &   Anr.   bearing   Criminal
Appeal   No.1556/2021   (arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)   No.6061/
2021);   Vishnu   Prasad   Pandey   vs.   State   of   U.P.   &   Anr.;
Criminal   Appeal   No.1552/2021   (arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)
2

No.3226/2021;   Subhash   Saini   and   Pramod   Prasad   Pandey
vs.   State   of   U.P.   &   Anr.;   Criminal   Appeal   No.1558/2021
(arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)   No.6611/2021)   and   Ratnakar
Dwivedi and Vikas Chandra Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Anr.;
Criminal   Appeal   No.1557/2021   (arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)
No.6569/2021)   arise   against   the   separate   orders,   all   dated
23.03.2021   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad,
Lucknow   Bench,   Lucknow   in   A.B.   No.5003   of   2020,   A.B
No.276 of 2021 and A.B. No.5370 of 2020 respectively. 
3. In   the   first   set   of   three   appeals,   the   complainant
Laxman   Prasad   Pandey   has   assailed   the   orders   passed   by
the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   enlarging   the
accused   on   bail,   in   case   relating   to   FIR   No.406   of   2020.   In
the   second   set   of   four   appeals,   the   appellants   therein   have
assailed   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
dismissing   the   petitions   filed   by   them   seeking   grant   of
anticipatory   bail   in   case   bearing   FIR   No.407   of   2020.   The
above   noted   two   sets   of   cases   were   tagged,   heard   together
and   are   therefore   being   disposed   of   by   this   common
judgment,   since   the   issue   in   these   appeals   pertain   to   the
same   incident   which   is   alleged   to   have   occurred   on
3

08.05.2020 within the jurisdiction of the Kotwali City Police
Station, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh. 
4. The brief facts to be noted for the purpose of disposal
of   these   appeals   indicate   that   Laxman   Prasad   Pandey   had
reported   with   a   complaint   to   the   jurisdictional   Police   on
09.05.2020   at   16:30   hours   about   the   incident.   The   same
was registered in FIR No.406 of 2020. In the said complaint,
he   had   alleged   that   he   along   with   his   brother   Ram   Prasad
Pandey, Subhash Saini, Surendra Tiwari and others went to
the   plot   situated   in   Marut   Nagar   where   Sarvesh   Tiwari,
Anand   Tiwari   @   Vivek   and   others   named   in   the   complaint
along   with   certain   other   unknown   persons   were   present.
Complainant went there to seek return of the money he had
given   earlier   to   Sarvesh   Tiwari.   It   is   alleged   that   Sarvesh
Tiwari and others were armed with repeater, pistol and rifle.
When the complainant reached there, he and his associates
were   asked   to   sit   on   the   chairs.   The   complainant   at   that
point   asked   for   return   of   his   money.   At   that   stage   Aditya
Singh   @   Major   and   the   other   persons   named   in   the
complaint   exhorted   to   attack   the   complainant   and   his
associates by  shouting “Mar  Dalo Salo Ko”. The said Aditya
4

Singh   and   Monu   are   alleged   to   have   caught   hold   of   the
appellants’   brother   and   snatched   his   licensed   pistol,   while
Sarvesh   Tiwari,   Anand   Tiwari,   Anjani   Shukla   and   others
who   were   armed   with   weapons   started   firing   on   the
complainant and his brother. They ran helter­skelter and in
the   melee,   appellant’s   brother   ­   Ram   Prasad   Pandey   fell
down   since   he   suffered   firearm   injuries.   His   brother   was
taken to the District Hospital, from where he was referred to
Allahabad Swaroop Rani Hospital when he breathed his last
during   the   treatment.   In   that   light,   the   FIR   was   registered
against the persons named therein which include the private
respondents   in   the   first   set   of   the   three   appeals,   under
Sections   147,   148,   149,   307,   302,   188   and   120B   IPC   and
Section 27/30 of Arms Act. It is in the said proceedings, the
accused   Anjani   Kumar   Shukla,   Rahul   @   Monu   Tiwari   and
Raj   Kumar   Maurya   had   filed   petitions   under   Section   439
Cr.PC  seeking  grant  of  bail.  The  same  being  allowed  by  the
High   Court,   the   complainant   is   before   this   Court   seeking
that the order be set aside.
5. In   respect   of   the   same   incident   alleged   to   have
occurred   on   08.05.2020   yet   another   FIR   bearing   No.407   of
5

2020   was   registered   based   on   the   complaint   lodged   by
Sarvesh   Tiwari   on   12.05.2020   at   16:14   hours.   In   the   said
complaint,   it   was   stated   by   Sarvesh   Tiwari   that   he   is   a
resident of Sagra Village and he works as a property dealer
in   Ranjitpur   Chilbila.   He   has   alleged   that   on   08.05.2020,
the   brokers   of   the   land   belonging   to   Ram   Prasad   Pandey,
Laxman  Prasad Pandey, Vishnu  Pandey  being  accompanied
with   the   others   named   in   the   complaint   and   being   armed
with   illegal   weapons   came   there.   Due   to   previous   enmity,
with   the   intention   to   kill   them   started   indiscrete   firing   on
the complainant and the others present. His cousin brother
Anand   Tiwari   and   also   Rahul   Tiwari   @   Monu   and   Anjani
Shukla   sustained   gunshot   injuries   and   fell   to   the   ground.
The   attacking   party   had   presumed   them   to   be   dead   and
went   away   abusing   them.   In   that   view,   the   complainant
sought action against them. The said crime No.407 of 2020
was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. In the
second   set   of   appeals   relating   to   the   said   FIR   No.407   of
2020,   the   persons   accused   therein   namely   Laxman   Prasad
Pandey,   Vishnu   Prasad   Pandey,   Subhash   Saini,   Pramod
Pandey,   Ratnakar   Dwivedi   and   Vikas   Chandra   Mishra   filed
6

petitions   before   the   High   Court   under   Section   438   of   IPC
seeking grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected.
The   rejection   of   the   anticipatory   bail   by   the   learned   Single
Judge is assailed in the second set of appeals. 
6. As   already   indicated,   since   all   the   above   noted
appeals   arise   out   of   the   same   alleged   incident   dated
08.05.2020   and   the   nature   of   consideration   would   be   the
same in all these cases, they are considered together. 
7. We   have   heard   Mr.   Sidharth   Luthra,   learned   senior
counsel   along   with   Ms.   Sakshi   Kakkar,   learned   counsel   for
the   appellants,   Mr.   V.K.   Shukla,   learned   senior   counsel   for
the   State   of   U.P.   and   Mr.   Sameer   Kumar,   learned   counsel
for the private respondents in all these appeals. 
8. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   has
taken us through the contents of FIR No.406 of 2020 and in
that   light   has   pointed   out   to   the   post­mortem   report   dated
09.05.2020   wherein   the   contents   reveal   that   Ram   Prasad
Pandey,   the   deceased   brother   of   the   complainant   had
suffered external injuries such as, wound caused by firearm.
In   that   light,   it   is   contended   that   when   the   case   registered
against   the   accused   is   for   the   grave   offences   which   include
7

the offence under Section 302 IPC and the provisions of the
Arms   Act,   the   learned   Single   Judge   ought   to   have
appropriately  recorded his satisfaction before exercising  the
discretion   to   enlarge   on   bail.   It   is   contended   that   in   the
instant case, the learned Single Judge except referring to the
rival contention has not analysed the same for recording his
satisfaction.   Observations   of   a   general   nature   is   made   and
ordered to enlarge the accused on bail. It is contended that
such   consideration   is   contrary   to   the   position   of   law
enunciated by this Court in the case of  Mahipal vs. Rajesh
Kumar   @   Polia   &   Anr.   (2020)   2   SCC   118.   The   learned
counsel   had   also   made   detailed   reference   to   the   other
material   on   record   to   contend   that   the   order   to  enlarge   the
accused   on   bail,   in   FIR   No.406   of   2020   is   liable   to   be   set
aside. 
9. Insofar   as   the   appeals   filed   by   the   accused   in   case
relating to FIR No.407 of 2020 Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned
senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants   therein
contended that the said complaint is filed only as a counter
blast.   It   was   an   afterthought   and   filed   as   late   as   on
8

12.05.2020.   Though   in   the   FIR   the   alleged   offence   is
registered   under   Section   307   IPC   as   well,   the   medical
certificate   relating   to   Anand   Tiwari   who   is   stated   to   be
injured   as   per   the   complainant,   has   suffered   only   simple
injuries caused due to hard and blunt object. In such event,
when   the   persons   named   in   the   said   FIR   are   available   to
cooperate   in   the   investigation,   the   petition   filed   by   them
seeking   anticipatory   bail   ought   to   have   been   appropriately
considered by the learned Single Judge and anticipatory bail
ought to have been granted. It is further contended that the
receipts   dated   28.05.2018   and   29.06.2018   would   indicate
that   Sarvesh   Tiwari   had   received   a   sum   of   Rs.3,00,000/­
(Rupees   three   lakhs)   from   Laxman   Prasad   Pandey   which
was to be returned. He and his brother were attacked when
they   legitimately   sought   return   of   the   money.   In   that
circumstance,   Sarvesh   Tiwari   and   others   named   in   FIR
No.406   of   2020   are   the   aggressors.   In   such   event,   there   is
no reason to deny  the appellants the benefit of anticipatory
bail sought by the appellants. 
10. The   learned   counsel   for   the   private   respondents   with
reference to the counter­affidavit filed on their behalf sought
9

to contend that the learned Single Judge having taken note
of the contentions relating to the case in FIR No.406 of 2020
and also the period of incarceration had granted bail to the
accused   which   is   justified.   It   is   contended   that   when   the
learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion, the same
would not call for interference. 
11. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the State,
with   reference   to   the   factual   aspects   has   contended   that
though   two   FIRs   are   registered,   as   evident,   the   matter
relates   to   the   same   incident   dated   08.05.2020   where   there
has been a group clash by using firearms which resulted in
indiscriminate firing. As such, in either case the accused in
both the set of cases are not entitled to be released on bail.
The learned counsel has also referred to the criminal history
of   the   persons   involved.   It   is   contended   that   the
investigation   in   the   case   relating   to   FIR   No.407   of   2020
could   not   be   concluded   as   the   accused   did   not   cooperate
after   obtaining   interim   protection   in   the   appeal   seeking
anticipatory   bail.   Further,   the   injured   person   is   still
undergoing   treatment.   Hence,   the   learned   counsel   seeks
that   the   bail   granted   to   the   accused   in   Crime   No.406   of
10

2020 be cancelled and the appeals relating to FIR No.407 of
2020 be dismissed. 
12. In   the   above   backdrop,   a   perusal   of   the   order   dated
16.03.2021   in   the   proceedings   relating   to   FIR   No.406   of
2020 in Bail Application No.1694 of 2021 indicates that the
learned   Judge   though   has   taken   note   of   details   of   the
incident   and   the   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties, has not analysed the same to record the satisfaction
to   enlarge   the   accused   on   bail.   The   ultimate   reason   and
conclusion   adopted   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   reads   as
hereunder: ­
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case,   and   also   considering   the   nature   of
allegations,   arguments   advanced   by   learned
counsel for the parties, the period for which he
is in jail and without expressing any opinion on
merits   of   the   case,   I   find   it   to   be   a   fit   case   for
enlarging the applicant on bail.”
The   nature   of   consideration   is   similar   in   the   order   dated
17.12.2020   and   26.07.2021   passed   in   Bail   Application
Nos.9559 of 2020 and 3876 of 2021 relating to the other two
accused in FIR No.406 of 2020. 
13. In   that   background,   a   perusal   of   the   decision
rendered   by   a   Two   Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Mahipal
11

(supra) authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reads as
hereunder: ­
“24.   There   is   another   reason   why   the
judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   has
fallen   into   error.   It   is   a   sound   exercise   of
judicial   discipline   for   an   order   granting   or
rejecting   bail   to   record   the   reasons   which
have weighed with the court for the exercise
of   its   discretionary   power.   In   the   present
case,   the   assessment   by   the   High   Court   is
essentially contained in a single para which
reads:
“4.   Considering   the   contentions
put   forth   by   the   counsel   for   the
petitioner   and   taking   into   account
the facts and circumstances of the
case   and   without   expressing
opinion   on   the   merits   of   the   case,
this Court deems it just and proper
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”
25.   Merely   recording   “having   perused   the
record” and “on the facts and circumstances of
the   case”   does   not   subserve   the   purpose   of   a
reasoned   judicial   order.   It   is   a   fundamental
premise   of   open   justice,   to   which   our   judicial
system   is   committed,   that   factors   which   have
weighed   in   the   mind   of   the   Judge   in   the
rejection   or   the   grant   of   bail   are   recorded   in
the  order  passed. Open  justice is premised on
the   notion   that   justice   should   not   only   be
done,   but   should   manifestly   and   undoubtedly
be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give
reasoned   decisions   lies   at   the   heart   of   this
commitment.   Questions   of   the   grant   of   bail
concern  both  liberty  of  individuals  undergoing
criminal prosecution as well as the interests of
the   criminal   justice   system   in   ensuring   that
12

those who  commit crimes are not  afforded the
opportunity   to   obstruct   justice.   Judges   are
duty­bound to explain the basis on which they
have arrived at a conclusion.”
14. While   arriving   at   such   conclusion   in   the   case   of
Mahipal   (supra), the Hon’ble Bench of this Court had   inter
alia   referred   to   an   earlier   decision   of   this   Court   in   Kalyan
Chandra   Sarkar   vs.   Rajesh   Ranjan   (2004)   7   SCC   528
wherein   another   Bench   of   this   Court,   authored   by   Justice
Santosh Hegde had held as hereunder: ­
“11.   The   law   in   regard   to   grant   or   refusal   of
bail   is   very   well   settled.   The   court   granting
bail   should   exercise   its   discretion   in   a
judicious   manner   and   not   as   a   matter   of
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a
detailed   examination   of   evidence   and
elaborate   documentation   of   the   merit   of   the
case need not be undertaken,   there is  a need
to   indicate   in   such   orders   reasons   for   prima
facie   concluding   why   bail   was   being   granted
particularly   where   the   accused   is   charged   of
having committed a serious offence. Any order
devoid of such reasons would suffer from non­
application of mind .”
15. In that background, reverting to the present facts, it is
noticed   that   the   conclusion   recorded   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   extracted   supra   is   almost   verbatim   similar   to   the
portion which is extracted and disapproved by this Court in
13

Mahipal’s   case   noted   supra.   It   is   noticed   that   with   such
sweeping   observation   made   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,
Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari and Raj Kumar
Maurya   the   accused   in   FIR   No.406   of   2020   have   been
ordered   to   be   enlarged   on   bail   though   the   charges
thereunder   are   grave,   which   include   Section   302   IPC   and
Section   27/30   of   the   Arms   Act.   The   allegation   is   of
indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of
Ram Prasad Pandey, the brother of the complainant. It is no
doubt   true,   that   the   investigation   has   been   carried   out   in
the   said   case   and   the   chargesheet   is   stated   to   have   been
filed.   Further,   the   fact   that   the   said   accused   persons   had
spent   10,  7  and  4  months  respectively  in   custody  seems  to
have   weighed   with   the   Court   which   could   not   have   been   a
mitigating factor when charges of such serious nature are to
be tried. The details furnished by the learned senior counsel
for   the   State   would   indicate   that   seven   other   cases   are
registered   against   one   of   the   accused   named   Raj   Kumar
Maurya who is also alleged to  be a part  of  the group of the
accused in the instant case. In such circumstance, when the
said   persons   are   also   stated   to   have   been   attacked   by   the
14

rival   group   as   alleged   in   the   counter   complaint   of   Sarvesh
Tiwari in FIR No.407 of 2020 and the investigation is not yet
complete   in   the   said   proceedings,   it   would   not   be
appropriate for the said persons who were part of one group
which   had   clashed   against   the   other   to   be   in   a   position   to
alter   the   nature   of   consideration   when   ultimately   a
composite   investigation   to   complete   the   process   in   FIR
No.407   of   2020   would   also   be   necessary.   Therefore,   at   the
outset, when it is noted that Ram Prasad Pandey died due to
firearm   wound  suffered by  him  and  both  the  FIR No.406 of
2020 and FIR No.407 of 2020 referred to the indiscriminate
use of firearm in the clash, the release of the accused in FIR
No.406   of   2020   at   this   juncture   was   not   justified,   more
particularly   in   a   circumstance   where   the   learned   Single
Judge   has   not   recorded   his   satisfaction   with   regard   to   the
specific details of the case and the reason for which each of
the   accused   was   entitled   to   be   enlarged   on   bail.   At   this
stage, in any event the role of each member in either group
is not clear.
16. Similarly, the complaint lodged in FIR No.407 of 2020
discloses that the allegation made against the appellants in
15

the second set of appeal is also of grave nature; to the effect
that   the   accused   persons   were   armed   with   illegal   weapons
and   due   to   the   previous   enmity,   they   had   come   there   with
intention to kill the complainant and his associates. In that
regard,   it   is   alleged   that   the   accused   had   indulged   in
indiscriminate firing on the complainant, his cousin brother
Anand Tiwari, Rahul Tiwari, Anjani Shukla and that they fell
down   on   sustaining   gunshot   injury.   As   against   the   said
allegations, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for
the   said   appellants   while   seeking   to   justify   the   prayer   for
grant   of   anticipatory   bail   has   made   strenuous   attempt   to
contend   that   the   said   complaint  is   belated   and   lodged   as   a
counter blast though there is no truth in the allegations. In
that  regard,  in  order  to  contend that  Anand  Tiwari had  not
suffered   gunshot   injury,   has   referred   to   the   medical
certificate wherein the opinion expressed is that the injuries
which   were   shown   to   be   lacerated   wound   are   simple   in
nature caused due to hard and blunt object. 
17. Though such contention is put forth, we are unable to
appreciate   the   same   in   favour   of   the   said   appellants   to
consider   grant   of   anticipatory   bail,   for   more   than   one
16

reason.     Firstly,   the   delay  as   alleged  in   filing   the   complaint
would   not   be   material   at   this   stage   since   the   ultimate
reference is to the very same incident dated 08.05.2020. The
allegation in the complaint dated 12.05.2020 is not relating
to   any   other   subsequent   incident   so   as   to   deem   it   as   a
complaint   filed   as   being   in   the   nature   of   counter   blast.
Further,   the   very   complaint   registered   at   the   behest   of
Laxman   Prasad   Pandey   in   FIR   No.406   of   2020   would
indicate that in his complaint, he has  inter alia  stated thus ­
“in the meanwhile, Aditya Singh and Monu caught hold of the
appellants’ brother and thereby snatched his licensed pistol”.
The said statement in his own complaint would indicate that
the group including the complainant in FIR No.406 of 2020
who are the accused in FIR No.407 of 2020 and are seeking
for   grant   of   anticipatory   bail   were   also   armed   with   firearm
when   they   had   gone   to   the   said   spot   where   the   incident
occurred. If that  be the position, it is too  premature at this
stage to arrive at any conclusion as to which group was the
aggressor   and   the   manner   in   which   the   firing   had   erupted
and also the weapons that were used. These are all matters
to   be   looked   into   during   the   investigation   of   the   pending
17

complaint   and   for   the   purpose   of   framing   charges   and   the
consequent trial. In addition, though the injuries suffered by
Anand Tiwari is contended to be a simple injury, the counter
statement   filed   on   behalf   of   the   respondents,   more
particularly   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   would   indicate   that
one of the reasons given for incompletion of the investigation
is   that   the   injured   is   still   undergoing   treatment   which
makes it obvious that he has suffered more than the simple
injuries   referred   to   by   the   learned   counsel.   Therefore,   if   all
these aspects are kept in view, the allegations are of serious
nature   which   would   require   a   detailed   investigation   and
recovery   of   weapons   in   the   course   of   investigation   which   is
yet   to   be   completed.   In   that   view,   it   is   not   a   fit   case   where
the   appellants   in   the   second   set   of   appeal   need   to   be
protected by grant of anticipatory bail. 
18. In the above background, in both the set of cases the
composite   consideration   would   be   required   in   the   further
process   of   investigation,   framing   charges   and   trial.   That
apart,   as   noticed,   one   among   the   accused   namely   Raj
Kumar Maurya who has a criminal history was also a part of
one of the groups involved in the incident which occurred on
18

08.05.2020   and   in   that   circumstance   when   the   case   has
been   registered   under   Section   302   and   in   the   second   FIR
under   Section   307,   in   addition   to   Section   149   IPC,   in   both
the  cases, the  bail granted to  the  appellants in  the  first  set
of cases would not be justified. Further, as indicated supra,
the appellants in  the  second  set of  cases would also  not be
entitled   to   grant   of   anticipatory   bail,   though   it   would   be
open   to   them   to   surrender   and   seek   for   regular   bail   on   its
own merits.  
19. For all the afore­stated reasons, the following order: ­
(i) The   orders   dated   16.03.2021,   17.12.2020   and
26.07.2021   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
in   Bail   Applications   No.1694/2021;   9559/2020
and   3876/2021   are   set   aside   and   the   bail
granted by the High Court is set aside.
(ii) The   bail   bonds   executed   by   Anjani   Kumar
Shukla,   Rahul   @   Monu   Tiwari   and   Raj   Kumar
Maurya   shall   stand   cancelled   and   the   said
accused shall be taken to custody.
(iii) The Criminal Appeal No.1551/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No.3285/2021;   Criminal   Appeal   No.1554­
19

1555/2021   @   SLP   (Crl.)   Nos.5605­5606/2021
and Criminal Appeal No.1553/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No. 5539/2021) are allowed accordingly.
(iv) The Criminal Appeal No.1556/2021 @ SLP (Crl.)
No.6061/   2021;   Criminal   Appeal   No.1552/2021
@ SLP (Crl.)  No.3226/2021; Criminal Appeal No.
1558/2021   @   SLP   (Crl.)   No.6611/2021)   and
Criminal   Appeal   No.1557/2021   @   SLP   (Crl.)
No.6569/2021   seeking   for   an   order   of
anticipatory bail are dismissed. 
(v) The   interim   orders   passed   during   the   pendency
of these proceedings shall stand dissolved.
(vi) It   will   be   open   for   the   appellants   in   Criminal
Appeal   Nos.1556/2021,   1552/2021,   1558/2021
and   1557/2021   to   surrender   and   seek   for
regular bail which shall be considered on its own
merits, in accordance with law.
(vii) This   order   shall   not   be   an   impediment   for   the
trial court or High Court to consider applications
of   any   of   the   accused   at   the   appropriate   stage.
All contentions in that regard are kept open. The
20

observation herein shall not be considered as an
expression of opinion on merits of the case.
(viii) Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
   ....………….…………………………...……. J.
   (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
                            
 ….....…………………………….……………J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)    
New Delhi,
December 11, 2021 
21