Granting Bail By Merely Noticing Arguments Raised By Counsel Cannot Be Legally Sustained: SC Sets Aside Bail Granted To Murder Accused
|The Supreme Court, while setting aside bail granted to a murder accused, observed that releasing an accused involved in a heinous crime on bail by merely noticing arguments raised by counsel cannot be legally sustained.
The complainant had filed an FIR alleging his son's murder. The accused was arrested and taken into custody after the investigation. Despite the trial court's rejection of his bail application, the High Court granted him bail. Subsequently, the complainant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court which granted bail to the accused.
Justice Sudhansu Dhulia and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “When the matter was investigated in detail, the police could gather evidence pointing out involvement of the respondent no.2 in crime. The material collected was discussed in detail by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the respondent no.2. However, the High Court merely noticing the arguments raised primarily by the counsel for the respondent no.2 has directed for his release on bail, which in our opinion cannot be legally sustained.”
AOR Rajat Singh represented the appellant, while AOR Yusuf appeared for the respondents.
The complainant argued that while directing the release of the accused on bail, the High Court had failed to consider the relevant facts, which led to the accused’s involvement in the crime. The complainant submitted that the High Court had allowed the bail application by merely noticing the stand taken by the parties which was in contravention of the law.
Conversely, the accused contended that he was not named in the FIR and had already suffered incarceration for over a year. The accused argued that the High Court's decision was based on careful consideration of available evidence and the potential prejudice to both sides in providing detailed findings.
The Court took note of the accused being involved in the “heinous crime where murder of the son of the appellant-complainant had taken place.”
“The High Court merely noticing the arguments raised primarily by the counsel for the respondent no.2 has directed for his release on bail, which in our opinion cannot be legally sustained,” the Court held.
The Court clarified that “nothing in the above said order shall prejudice the respondent no.2 in any subsequent proceedings relating to the crime.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
Cause Title: Ram Murti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 250)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Rajat Singh and Sudhir Naagar; Advocates Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ambrish Tiwari, Sarthak Chandra, Chetan Jadon, Chandra Mohan Khatana, Arun Kumar Nagar and Piyush Aggarwal
Respondents: AOR Yusuf; Advocates Amit Arora, Amarjeet Singh Girsa and Ritu Solanki