1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 9251 OF 2016 ]  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                    Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS AMIT PAL SINGH                            Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The State is before us, aggrieved by the order of grant of bail to the respondent.  When the matter came up before this Court, the following order was passed on 08.05.2017 :-

“The petitioner-State is directed to

get specific written instruction from

the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Kanpur  (or  any  other  Superintendent

of  Police  concerned)  regarding  the

conduct  of  the  respondent  and  the

likely time the trial court may take

to conclude the trial.”

3. In response to the above order, the State has filed an affidavit dated 13.07.2017.  Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the said affidavit read as under :-

2

“4. That  in  compliance  of  the

aforementioned  order  it  is  submitted

that  regarding  the  conduct  of  the

accused Respondent/Amit Pal Singh it is

stated that Respondent Amit Pal Singh is

a licensee of shop Gur Ramdas Armoury.

Further it is stated that even in stock

registers it has not been mentioned that

for which State license has been issued

by  licensing  authorities  to  whom  fire

arms have been sold.

5. The record of sale of arms of Guru

Ram Das Armoury, Kanpur further reveals

that many weapons have been shown to be

sold  in  the  naxalite  affected  States

like Jharkhand, Bihar and Udhampur under

Jammu and Kashmir State and when enquiry

was made by the Investigating Officer of

case regarding verification of licenses

as  many  as  26  Arm  licenses  were  not

found  in  existence  upon  which  weapons

have been shown to be sold.

6. It is further pertinent to state

herein that in the year 2008 co-accused

Mantoo Sharma @Sanjay Singh along with

06  naxalite  were  arrested  at  Gandhi

Maidan Patna by the police personnel of

3

Police  Station  –  Gandhi  Maidan  Patna,

Bihar and during the search and seizure

03 rifles along with vehicle and cash

were  recovered  from  the  possession  of

co-accused Mantoo Sharma @ Sanjay Singh

who was going to sell these rifles to

the naxalites and in his admission he

has admitted that all these rifles were

purchased  by  him  from  Guru  Ram  Das

Armoury,  Meston  Road,  Kanpur,  which

belongs to present accused & also that

he is an absconder from Army.

That further the records of Guru Ram

Das  Armoury   further  reveals  that

accused was also involved in purchasing

useless fire arms from Bombay and Kanpur

and later on these so purchased useless

fire  arms  have  been  re-assembled  with

the addition of foreign fire arm parts

and after changing the respective bore

of these fire arms the entry of these

fire arms have been in stock registers

of  Guru  Ram  Das  Armoury  and  later  on

these fire arms after change of their

respective  bores  have  been  sold  to

innocent license holders as well as anti

social elements and some of which were

4

recovered  by  the  Investigating  Agency

form  the  innocent  purchasers.   The

report of CFSL to this effect was called

and the report of CFSL, CBI, New Delhi

reveals  that  all  these  weapons  were

improvised.

Therefore, it is most humbly submitted

that Respondent herein has grave nexus

with other accused persons and are in

accomplice in providing illegal weapons

to the Naxalites and hence in view of

such circumstances the bail granted to

the  Respondent  herein  ought  to  be

cancelled.   

7. It is further pertinent to state

herein  that  accused/applicant  was

arrested  by  the  Investigating  Agency

after  finding  his  involvement  in  the

present  case  however,  later  on  the

accused/applicant  along  with  other

co-accused persons have moved more than

40 applications on different dates just

to  avoid  framing  of  charge  and  it  is

only  on  date  charge  has  been  framed

against  accused/applicant  and  other

co-accused persons.

It is pertinent to mention here that

5

the accused was also facing trial under

special provision u/s 2/3 U.P. Ganster

Act in Case Crime No. 4/2013, wherein

the  Respondent  herein  has  preferred  a

bail application no. 6212 of 2016, which

has already been rejected by the Hon'ble

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad

High  Court,  Lucknow  Bench,  Lucknow  on

14.12.2016 & hence the accused is still

in  jail  (Annexed  as  Annexure-12  of

Additional Documents).  

8. That it is worthy to mention here

that  although  vide  the  impugned  order

the accused Respondent herein  has been

enlarged  on  Bail  by  the  Hon'ble  High

Court  in  the  present  case,  but  he  is

still languishing  in Jail in another

Case Crime No. 4/2013, wherein the bail

is rejected by the Hon'ble High Court

vide order dated 14.12.2016.

It  is  further  pertinent  to  mention

here  that  in  the  present  case  this

Hon'ble  Court  vide  its  Order  dated

8.10.2014 was pleased to cancel the Bail

of  one  of  the  co-accused  person  i.e.

Guru Charan Singh who also happens to be

the  father  of  the  Respondent  herein

6

(annexed as Annexure A-2 of Additional

Document.)

9. It  is  humbly  submitted  that  the

trial is going on in speedy manner on

day to day basis and the same may be

concluded within 6 months.  Further it

is  stated  that  there  are  13  accused

persons  and  they  are  unreasonably

delaying  the  trial.   It  is  submitted

that  Respondent/accused  and  other

co-accused  persons  are  themselves

responsible  in  delaying  the  trial.”

4. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the view that the matter needs a fresh look by the High Court in the light of the affidavit extracted above.

5. Accordingly,  without  expressing  any  further opinion on the merits of the impugned order passed by the High Court, we set aside the impugned order and remit  the  matter  to  the  High  Court  for  fresh consideration in the light of the affidavit extracted above.

7

6. Needless to say that the parties will be free to raise  all  available  contentions  before  the  High Court.   We  request  the  High  Court  to  pass  orders expeditiously  and  preferably,  within  a  period  of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

7. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; July 18, 2017.