/2022 INSC 0812/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1547 OF 2022
Nitu Kumar       …Appellant(s)
Versus
Gulveer & Anr.                 …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment  and order  dated 21.07.2022 passed  by  the  High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Misc.   Bail
Application   No.   11120   of   2022,   by   which,   the   High   Court
has directed to release respondent No. 1 – accused on bail
in   connection   with   Case   Crime   No.   80   of   2021   for   the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of Police Station
Rohata,   District   Meerut,   the   original   complainant   has
preferred the present appeal.    
1

2. That on 19.06.2021, on the report of the informant – Nitu
Kumar,   an   FIR   being   Case   Crime   No.   80/2021   under
Section   302   IPC   of   Police   Station   Rohata,   District   Meerut,
came   to   be   registered   against   accused   Shekhar,   Gulveer
(respondent No. 1 herein) and one another person. During
the   course   of   the   investigation,  statement  of  eye­witness   –
Narender   has   been   recorded.   In   his   statement   under
Section   161   Cr.P.C.,   a   specific   role   has   been   attributed   to
respondent No. 1 that he caught hold of the deceased and
the   co­accused   Shekhar   caused   the   injury   on   the   neck   of
the deceased. In the FIR, the motive was also alleged. That
respondent   No.   1   came   to   be   arrested   on   24.06.2021.   On
conclusion   of   the   investigation   and   based   on   the
statements   of   informant,   witnesses   and   on   the   basis   of
evidence   collected   during   the   investigation,   a   chargesheet
has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC. 
2.1 Respondent   No.  1  –   Gulveer   filed  a   bail  application   before
the   learned   Trial   Court.   The   learned   Sessions   Judge
dismissed   the   said   bail   application.   Then,   respondent   No.
1   –   Gulveer   filed   the   present   bail   application   before   the
2

High   Court.   Before   the   High   Court,   it   was   mainly
contended   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   1   –   accused   that
the   only   role   attributed   to   him   is   catching   hold   of   the
deceased   and   the   main   role   of   causing   injuries   to   the
deceased   is   assigned   to   the   co­accused   Shekhar.   By   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   without   considering
seriousness   and   gravity   of   the   offence   committed   and   the
role attributed to respondent No. 1 – accused and without
assigning   any   reason   and   only   by   observing   that
“ Considering   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the
submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties
and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of
the   accused,   scrutinizing   the   facts   mentioned   in   the   FIR,
statement  of  witnesses  recorded  under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and   without   expressing   any   opinion   on   the   merits   of   the
case,   the   Court   is   of   the   view   that   the   applicant   has   made
out a case for bail ” the High Court has released respondent
No. 1 on bail. 
2.2 From   the   aforesaid   it   can   be   seen   that   nothing   has   been
discussed   by   the   High   Court   on   the   role   attributed   to
3

respondent   No.   1   –   accused   and   his   overt   act   in
commission   of   the   offence.   The   High   Court   has   not
appreciated   that   there   is   an   eye   witness,   who   has
categorically   stated   that   respondent   No.   1   caught   hold   of
the   deceased.   The   High   Court   ought   to   have   appreciated
that if respondent No. 1 would not have caught hold of the
deceased   it   would   not   have   been   possible   for   the   co­
accused   Shekhar   to   cause   injuries   on   the   deceased.
Therefore,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have   appreciated   that
the   role   attributed   to   respondent   No.   1   can   be   said   to   be
very   serious   like   co­accused   Shekhar.   As   per   the   settled
position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a
relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail. The
High   Court   was   required   to   consider   the   gravity   and   the
seriousness of the offence and the nature of the allegations
against   respondent   No.   1   –   accused.   Under   the
circumstances,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by   the   High   Court   releasing   respondent   No.   1   on   bail   for
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   of   IPC   is
unsustainable. 
4

3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 1
­   accused   on   bail   in   Case   Crime   No.   80/2021   of   Police
Station   Rohata,  District  Meerut   for   the   offence  punishable
under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. 
4. Now, respondent No. 1­ Gulveer – accused shall surrender
before the concerned Court/Jail authority forthwith failing
which   he   be   arrested   by   issuing   non­bailable   warrant.
However,   it   is   observed   that   the   learned   Trial   Court   to
conduct   the   trial   in   accordance   with   law   and   on   its   own
merits   and   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   led   before   it.   The
present   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent. No costs. 
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]
5