ATAMARAM Vs STATE OF U.P.
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001678-001678 / 2013
Diary number: 482 / 2012
Advocates: JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA Vs
P. K. JAIN
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1678 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]
Atmaram …..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. …..Respondents
W I T H
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]
Atmaram …..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Crl.Appeal No. 1678 of 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]
1. Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the Chauki-in-charge,
Sheikpura Kadi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, U.P. that on
13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, namely, Kunwar Singh and other co-
accused had cut the ridge of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in an
altercation between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other persons,
Page 2
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
namely, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish
and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site; Kunwar Singh and
Rafal Singh were armed with Balkati and the others with lathis. The six
persons allegedly attacked the Appellant, his sons, namely, Sanjay and
Baliram and his grandson Udaiveer all of whom suffered serious injuries.
All of them stand charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302
I.P.C. Sanjay (deceased) suffered the following injuries:
“(i) Multiple LW 8 x 4 cm top of head into bone deep 12 cm
above (eligible) root of nose CTs 6 x 8 cm.
(ii) IW 6 x 6 cm into bone deep rt side head 7 cm above rt ear
K/W.”
According to the Medical Report Injury no.(i) has been caused by hard
and blunt object and Injury no.(ii) by sharp edged object. Although
Respondent no.2 Kunwar Singh has set up an alibi, it is not in dispute that
it was he who had taken the members of his group to the hospital on that
fateful day itself. Eventually, he was granted bail by the impugned Order
in respect of Case Crime No.29/119 of 2011 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, I.P.C. P.S.
Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.
2. On the other hand, the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, had
prior thereto noted that Kunwar Singh had been named in the FIR,
along with a specific role. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was
obviously influenced by the fact that injuries on Sanjay (deceased)
were on vital part of the body, i.e., the head; that on the indication of
2
Page 3
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
Kunwar Singh, the Balkati was recovered from a sugarcane field and
that the unrebutted case is that Kunwar Singh was involved in a number
of cases including four shown pending in the Gang Chart including one
for murder and another for rape. In the view of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Saharanpur, these were sufficient reasons to decline bail as
transpires from his Order dated 20.5.2011.
3. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate had submitted to the High
Court, and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of U.P. has
similarly pressed before us, that the Applicant-Respondent no.2 was
armed with the reaping hook (Balkati) and the deceased had sustained
Injury no.2 allegedly by this weapon. Moreover Respondent no.2 is
involved in several criminal cases and that if he is released on bail, he
is likely to tamper with evidence. Learned Counsel for Respondent
no.2 has contended that all the cases in which Respondent no.2 has
been named, he has been acquitted in two and has been released on
bail in the third. The High Court was impressed with the view that the
occurrence has taken place in a sudden quarrel and, therefore, there
was no “pre-intention” or pre-meditation; that it has not been specified
as to whose blow caused the incised wound being Injury no.2; that it
was difficult to decide which party was the aggressor; that Respondent
no.2, the Applicant before the High Court, was in jail since 25.3.2011.
It was in these premises that Kunwar Singh had been granted bail on
terms in the impugned Order dated 5.9.2011.
3
Page 4
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
4. In the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P., the criminal
history of Respondent no.2 is contained in the following table :
S.No. Crime No. Sections Police Station District 1. 29/119/2011 Under Sec.147,
148, 149, 323, 325, 302 IPC
Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
2. 295/2006 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, IPC
Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
3. 142/1993 325 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur 4. 208/91 342, 323 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur 5. 231/2008 447, 353, 504,
506, IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
6. 571/2011 2/3 Gangster Act
Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
7. NCR No.176/2011
504, 506 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
8. NCR No.37/2012
504, 506 IPC Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
9. Crime Case No.54/12
Sec.3 U.P. Gunda Control Act
Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur
That apart, it is the asseveration on behalf of the State of U.P. that
Respondent no.2 has been tampering with evidence by giving threats to
witnesses and that it is palpably evident that in the impugned Order, the
High Court had ignored his criminal antecedents as well as the specific
role assigned against him in the subject complaint.
5. Keeping the above factors in view, primarily the criminal antecedents
of Respondent no.2, we do not think that it is fanciful, unreasonable or
irresponsible for the State of U.P. to contend that Respondent no.2 has
violated the terms of his bail by threatening or intimidating witnesses.
Even in the Affidavit dated 27.6.2013 filed by the Circle Officer, City-
4
Page 5
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
II, District Saharanpur, details of as many as ten cases in which
Respondent no.2 is involved have been given.
6. In these circumstances, therefore, it was incorrect and imprudent for
the High Court to grant bail at least till such time as the examination of
the eye witnesses had been completed. The Court should not lose
perspective of the fact that intimidation of witnesses is a common
occurrence at least as regards persons who have come into conflict
with the law on multiple occasions. Accordingly, the impugned Order
is set aside and the bail of Respondent no.2 is cancelled. His bail
bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. He shall be
taken into custody forthwith.
7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]
8. Leave granted. The Bail Orders dated 3.11.2011 passed by the High
Court in favour of Rafal Singh, Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @
Awanish have been assailed in this Appeal. Earlier, another Addl.
Sessions Judge, Saharanpur had rejected their applications vide Orders
dated 14.10.2011. The alleged role ascribed to Rafal Singh is identical
in material particulars to that of Kunwar Singh, both of whom allegedly
were armed with Balkatis. As per the Affidavit dated 27.6.2013 filed
on behalf of the State there are as many as fifteen cases pending against
him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court erred in
5
Page 6
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
granting bail to the said Respondent as well. We set aside the Order of
the High Court so far as Rafal Singh is concerned. His bail bonds shall
stand cancelled and the sureties discharged, and he shall be taken into
custody forthwith.
9. So far as Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish are concerned, it
appears that they were not armed with sharp edged weapons but with
lathis/dandas. Of course, it is alleged, so far as Sanjay (deceased) is
concerned, that he had also suffered from multiple lacerated wounds on
the top of his head, for which prima facie Shashpal and Hanish are
responsible. The State has not alleged pendency of any previous cases
against them and it is also not the prosecution case that these two
persons have endeavoured to intimidate or influence witnesses. For
these reasons, so far as these two Respondents are concerned, the
impugned Order is not interfered with. It is, however, made clear that
if they are found to be intimidating or influencing witnesses or
tampering with the evidence the bail granted to these respondents shall
be liable to be cancelled. It is further made clear that the observations
made hereinabove will not affect the Trial which should be conducted
on its own merit.
10.The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
.............................................J .
[T.S. THAKUR]
6
Page 7
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387/12 etc. .... (contd.)
.............................................J .
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN] New Delhi October 08, 2013.
7