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