1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3331 OF 2018]

SHRI RAM MURTI SINGH                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

BRIJESH SINGH & ANR.                          Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by

the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail

Application No. 44781 of 2015, whereby the High Court

granted bail to the first respondent, who is Accused

No. 2 in Case Crime No. 284 of 2013, registered under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 & 120B IPC and under

Section  7  of  Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act,  Police

Station Meja, District Allahabad.

3. Having gone through the impugned order, we are

disturbed to note that there is no proper application

of mind on the part of the learned Judge.  The High

Court, in the impugned Judgment, has held as under :-

“Without expressing any opinion on

the  merits  of  the  case  and

2

considering the nature of accusation

and  the  severity  of  punishment  in

case of conviction and the nature of

supporting  evidence,  reasonable

apprehension  of  tampering  of  the

witnesses  and  prima  facie

satisfaction of the Court in support

of  the  charge,  the  applicant  is

entitled to be released on bail in

this case.”    

4. Obviously,  the  considerations  recorded  by  the

learned Judge are good enough for denial of bail and

yet the learned Judge has granted the bail.

5. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the first respondent submits that he

has been in custody since 08.08.2013.  But we are

informed by the prosecution that the trial has not

yet  been  concluded.   Mr.  Pramod  Swarup,  learned

senior counsel appearing for the State, submits that

only  3  out  of  13  witnesses  have  been  examined.

Therefore, we set aside the order dated 30.03.2018

and dismiss the application for bail.  However, we

make it clear that after the conclusion of the trial,

it will be open to the first respondent to renew his

application for bail before the trial court, in which

case, the same will be considered on its own merits.

3

6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

We direct the trial court to conclude the trial as

expeditiously as possible and preferably, within four

months.

7. Pending  interlocutory  application(s),  if  any,

is/are disposed of.      

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

.......................J.               [ DEEPAK GUPTA ]  

.......................J.               [ HEMANT GUPTA ]  

New Delhi; November 20, 2018.