Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Accused Was Also Not Considered- SC Quashes HC's Order Granting Bail
While setting aside and quashing Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the murder accused, the Supreme Court observed that amongst the other factors, the High Court also did not consider that a non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused and thereafter he was arrested.
The Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari held –
"The High Court has also not considered the fact that earlier the respondent No. 2 – accused initiated the proceedings before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against him by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has also not considered that the special leave petition filed against the order passed by the High Court rejecting the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also got dismissed by this Court. The High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent No. 2 – accused and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021. All the aforesaid aspects, which are very material and/or relevant while considering the prayer for bail have been ignored by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail."
In this case, the State of UP had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the High Court by which the Court had released the Respondent No. 2 was released on bail in connection with the offences under Section 302 and Section 120B IPC.
Counsel Ashutosh Dubey appeared for Respondent No. 2 before the Apex Court.
The Apex Court noted, "At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 is facing the trial for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, it can be seen that the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent No. 2. Even the High Court has not considered the relevant material forming the charge sheet. No cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a very serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC."
The Court also noted that the High Court considered the enlargement on bail to the co-accused, however, the High Court while considering the parity did not consider the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against Respondent No. 2.
Thus, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned judgment of the High Court releasing Respondent No. 2 on bail and directed the Respondent to surrender, and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title – Bohatti Devi. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
