/2022 INSC 0080/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.97 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
With 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.98 OF 2022
Manno Lal Jaiswal                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment(s)   and   order(s)   dated   06.10.2020   passed   by   the
High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Misc.
Bail   Application   Nos.   6294   of   2020   and   7992   of   2020   by
1

which   the   High   Court   has   released   respective   respondents
No.2 herein on bail in connection with Case Crime No.203 of
2019   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   147,   148,
149,   323,   504,   506,   302,   307   and   34   of   the   IPC,   P.S.
Barhaj,  District  Deoria, the  original   informant/complainant
– father of the deceased has preferred the present appeals.  
2. That   the   appellant   herein   lodged   an   FIR   against   respective
respondents   No.2   and   others   for   the   offences   punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and
34 of the IPC for murder of his son. Respective respondents
No.2   –   accused   applied   to   release   them   on   bail   before   the
learned Sessions Courts/Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.
By   detailed   judgment(s)   and   order(s)   dated   19.11.2019   and
22.01.2020,   the   learned   Sessions   Courts   rejected   the   said
bail   applications   after   perusing   the   case   dairy   and   other
documents.   The   learned   Sessions   Courts   observed   that   the
accused   persons   are   named   in   the   FIR   and   it   has   been
alleged   that   all   the   accused   persons   with   a   common
intention attacked the deceased by  sword, hockey, stick and
rod   and   killed   the   son   of   the   complainant.   The   learned
Sessions   Court   noted   that   in   the   statement   of   witnesses
2

recorded   under   Section   161   Cr.PC   the   relevant   witnesses
have   given   evidence   in   support   of   the   incident.   That
thereafter respective respondents No.2 approached the High
Court   by   way   of   present   applications   under   Section   439
Cr.PC to release them on bail. By the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s), the High Court applied the wrong facts (which
has   been   demonstrated   hereinbelow)   and   has   released
respective respondents No.2 on bail.      
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court releasing
respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail,   the   original
complainant   –   father   of   the   deceased   has   preferred   the
present appeals.
4. Shri   Vijay   Kumar   Shukla   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   complainant   has   vehemently
submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case
the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in   releasing
respective respondents No.2 on bail. 
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   Shri   Vijay   Kumar   Shukla
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that
while   releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail,   the
3

High Court has applied the wrong facts. It is submitted that
the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment(s)   and   order(s)
has noted that the accused were not named in the FIR, but
their   names   have   figured   up   during   investigation.   It   is
submitted   that   aforesaid   is   factually   incorrect.   It   is
submitted   that   respective   respondents   No.2   were   named   in
the FIR right from the beginning. It is submitted that it was
not   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that   they   were   not
named   in   the   FIR   and   that   their   names   were   figured   up
during investigation. It is submitted that even the respective
learned Sessions Courts while rejecting the bail applications
have specifically noted that the accused were named in the
FIR. 
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   High   Court   has   noted   that
the   statement   of   the   witnesses   under   Section   161   Cr.PC
were  recorded  after   inordinate  delay   of   more  than   20   days.
It   is   submitted   that   the   same   is   factually   incorrect.   It   is
submitted   that   as   such   the   statements   of   the   relevant
witnesses   under   Section   161   Cr.PC   were   recorded   on   the
very day of the incident. 
4

4.3 It is submitted that while releasing the accused on bail the
High Court has not taken into consideration the gravity and
the   nature   of   offences   committed   by   the   accused.   It   is
submitted   that   the   High  Court   has  not   at  all  noted   and/or
considered   that   the   offence   alleged   was   under   Section   149
of the IPC also and therefore when it was found that all the
accused   persons   with   a   common   intention   attacked   the
deceased by  sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son
of   the   complainant,   the   individual   role   played   by   each
accused is insignificant and not a relevant consideration at
all. 
4.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   as   such   except
noting   the   submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused   as
well as by  learned Public Prosecutor and thereafter  making
the  general observations that  keeping  in view the nature of
the   offence,   evidence,   complicity   of   the   accused,
submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and
without   expressing   any   opinion   on   merits   of   the   case,   the
accused has made out a fit case for bail, no further reasons
are   assigned.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   order(s)
passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   respective   respondents
5

No.2 – accused have been passed mechanically and without
proper   application   of   mind   and   without   considering   the
relevant considerations of grant of bail as held by this Court
in the case of   Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and   another;   (2018)   12   SCC   129   are   not   at   all   adhered   to
and/or considered.      
       
5. Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG appearing
on   behalf   of   the   State   has   supported   the   appellant.   It   is
submitted   that   in   such   grave   offences   under   Sections   302,
147, 148, 149 of the IPC, the High Court ought not to have
released the respective respondents No.2 on bail.    
6. The present appeals are opposed by Shri Krishna M. Singh,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused   –
respective respondents No.2. 
6.1 It is submitted that as such it was never the case on behalf
of the accused that they were not named in the FIR and/or
that   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   under   Section   161
Cr.PC   were   recorded   at   a   later   stage/belatedly.   He   has
taken   us   to   the   relevant   averments   made   in   the   bail
applications.
6

6.2 It   is   submitted   that   however,   when   the   role   attributed   to
respective   respondents   No.2   is   that   they   used   the   wicket
and nothing is on record that they used any deadly weapon
and/or caused the injury on the vital part of the body of the
deceased,   the   High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in
releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail   more
particularly   when   respective   respondents   No.2   –   accused
were   in   jail   since   26.08.2019   and   05.09.2020,   respectively
and that accused have no criminal antecedents.            
7. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length.   
8. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   respective
respondents No.2 and other accused are charge­sheeted for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC. That as per the case
of   the   complainant   and   the   prosecution   all   the   accused
including   respective   respondents   No.2   herein   with   a
common intention attacked the deceased by   sword, hockey,
stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. As per
the post mortem report, five injuries were found on the body
7

of the deceased and fracture in  the occipital region  of  head
in right side and presence of hematoma in brain was found.
8.1 Despite the fact that all the accused persons were named in
the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses under
Section   161   Cr.PC   were   recorded   on   the   very   day,   on
applying   the   wrong   facts,   the   High   Court   has   released
respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail.   The   High   Court   has
noted   the   submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused,
which   has   been   accepted   by   the   High   Court   that   the
accused   were   not   named   in   the   FIR   and   that   their   names
were disclosed during investigation and that the statements
of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded at a
later   stage/belatedly.   The   aforesaid   are   factually   incorrect.
Even   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
accused has submitted that it was not the case on behalf of
the   accused   that   they   were   not   named   in   the   FIR   and/or
that   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   under   Section   161
Cr.PC   were   recorded   belatedly   and/or   at   a   later   stage.
Therefore,   it   appears   that   the   High   Court   has   granted   the
bail to respective respondents No.2 in such serious offences
8

in   which   one   person   was   killed   mechanically   and   without
applying the correct facts. 
8.2 Even   otherwise   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated
the   fact   that   all   the   accused   were   charged   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Sections   147,   148   and   149   also   along
with   Section   302   of   the   IPC   and   as   noted   by   the   learned
Sessions   Court   vide   order   dated   19.11.2019   that   all   the
accused   persons   with   a   common   intention   attacked   the
deceased   –   Sumit   Jaiswal   by   deadly   weapons   like   sword,
hockey,   stick   and   rod.   The   High   Court   has   noted   the
submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused   that   role
attributed   to   respective   respondents   No.2   that   using   the
wicket as weapon it is difficult to decipher at that stage that
the accused have caused fatal injury over the person. When
the accused were charged for the offences punishable under
Section   149   of   the   IPC   also   and   when   their   presence   has
been established and it is stated that they  were part of the
unlawful   assembly,   the   individual   role   and/or   overt   act   by
the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant. 
8.3 Even   otherwise   the   order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court
releasing   respective   respondents   No.2   on   bail   in   such
9

serious   offences   in   which   one   person   was   killed   is
unsustainable.   The   High   Court   has   not   adverted   to   the
gravity   and   nature   of   the   offences   at   all.   Even   no   reasons
are   assigned   by   the   High   Court   except   observing   in   one
paragraph as under:­
“The   submissions   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the
applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing
for the purpose of bail only.               
Keeping   in   view   the   nature   of   the   offence,   evidence,
complicity   of   the   accused,   submissions   of   the   learned
counsel   for   the   parties   and   without   expressing   any
opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the
applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”
The   aforesaid   can   hardly   be   said   to   be   assigning   the
reasons. 
9. Even otherwise, the High Court has also not considered the
relevant   considerations   while   grant   of   bail   as   observed   and
held by this Court in the case of  Anil Kumar Yadav  (supra).
In   the   said   decision,   it   is   observed   and   held   by   this   Court
that   while   granting   bail,   the   relevant   considerations   are   ( i )
nature   of   seriousness   of   the   offence;   ( ii )   character   of   the
evidence   and   circumstances   which   are   peculiar   to   the
accused;   and   ( iii )   likelihood   of   the   accused   fleeing   from
10

justice;   ( iv )   the   impact   that   his   release   may   make   on   the
prosecution   witnesses,   its   impact   on   the   society;   and   ( v )
likelihood of his tampering. From the impugned judgment(s)
and   order(s),   it   appears   that   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all
adverted   to   the   relevant   facts   and/or   considerations   while
granting bail. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the
High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail
mechanically and on applying the wrong facts which even as
per   the   accused   were   not   their   cases.   The   impugned
judgment(s)   and   order(s)   releasing   respective   respondents
No.2   on   bail   are   unsustainable   both   on   facts   as   well   as   on
law. 
           
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above   the
present   appeals   succeed.   The   impugned   judgment(s)   and
order(s)   passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   respective
respondents No.2 on bail are hereby quashed and set aside.
Now   respondent   No.2   –   Pradyumn   alias   Pradumn   alias
Deepak   Gupta   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.97   of   2022   and
respondent   No.2   ­   Shalu   in  Criminal   Appeal   No.98   of   2022
to   surrender   forthwith.   However,   it   is   observed   that   the
observations   made   in  the   present   order   be   confined   for   the
11

purpose of deciding the bail only and the learned Trial Court
shall   proceed   with   the   trial   and   decide   the   same   in
accordance   with   law   and   on   the   basis   of   the   evidences   led
by   both   the   sides.   The   present   appeals   are   accordingly
allowed. 
 
…………………………………J.
    (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (Sanjiv Khanna)
New Delhi, 
January, 25 th
 2022
12