The factors like gravity and seriousness of offences alleged against an accused by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for Bail

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 29th January 2020

Prabhakar Tewari V/s. State of UP & Anr. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.153 OF 2020

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the High Court on 11th September, 2019 granting bail to two accused persons, Vikram Singh@ Vikki (in SLP (Crl.) No.9207/2019) and Malkhan Singh (in SLP (Crl.) No.9209/2019) arraigned in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a First Information Report dated 7th February 2009.
2. The appellant is the son of the deceased victim, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari. He was assaulted by gunshots on 7th February, 2019 at about 4.00 p.m. while returning to his residence after attending the Court in connection with a case.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Vikram Singh is involved in at least five other criminal cases under the same Police Station, Jagdishpur. He has also brought to our notice the witness statement of one Narendra Dev Upadhyay. This statement was recorded on 29th March 2019. The part of his statement to which our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant records that the said witness saw Vikram Singh standing near National Highway 56 Flyover on the date of occurrence of the incident in Warisganj with 6 or 7 accomplices and all of them were talking about plans of killing the victim. 
4. The facts highlighted by the appellant are that the case involves offence under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused has several criminal cases pending against him and has been named in the statement forming the basis of the FIR on the date of occurrence itself. Two individuals, Rahul Tiwari and Narendra Dev Upadhyay, whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 of the 1973 Code also refer to involvement of the accused Vikram Singh.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed and presence of criminal antecedents are the sole basis to reject the prayer for bail? 

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed the following: “On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2019) for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would 8 establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail.”