Case title:
Indresh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Order:
12/07/2022
Bench:
Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Ramasubramanian
Parties:
Indresh Kumar – Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Subject
The Apex court stressed the importance of statements given by persons under suspicion as laid out in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in determining prima facie if the pleading party is deserving of bail, notwithstanding the evidence.
Facts
- Present application is in a direct challenge to the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to the accused/respondent booked under Sections 302,201,376 of the Indian Penal code and also under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCOSO Act.
- The High Court consulted the judgment of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. &Ors. [(2018) 3 SCC 22]in which the granting of bail by the court to the co-accused is a valid ground for the court to grant bail to the applicant/accused also without examining the gravity of the crimes.
- Actions for which the respondent was accused of were coldblooded rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl who happened to be his own daughter, further there were also glaring elements of attempts to evade justice as he tried to bury the child along with other crucial evidence.
Arguments Advanced by Applicants
- The learned counsel appearing for applicants reiterated the grievous and dastardly accusations levied against the respondent and the complete irrationality of the High Court order granting him leave.
- Accused’s attempts at evading the law were highlighted and it was specified by the learned counsel that he cannot be trusted with the bail agreements.
Judgment
- The Bench criticized the High Court’s interpretation of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. &Ors (supra) as it was further mentioned in the judgment that the bail can be granted largely at the discretion of the court, but the requirements and criteria for bail have been laid out by many other previous judgments by other High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Also relying upon Emperor v. Hutchinson, [AIR 1931 All. 356] the Court observed that there can be some cases in which granting of bail is impractical but the matter still lies upon the discretion of the Judge, it also falls upon the court to ensure that the terms of bail aren’t impossible to comply with.
- It was further held after referring to Neeraj Yadav vs. the State of U.P. [(2016) 15 SCC 422] that Given the legal position, it is very evident that the High Court completely disregarded the accused's past history. The doctrine of parity is what the High Court considered. A history-sheeter engaging in the types of crimes we have listed above is not to be kept in detention since they are not insignificant offenses; rather, they are horrible acts that cannot in any way be characterized as juvenile.
Conclusion
Had the High Court given the seriousness of the offense considerable thought, there'd be some evidence of the ostensibly alleviating circumstance that justified the respondent-release accused on bail. On the surface, the accusations are serious, the penalty is high, and it is impossible to claim that there have been no elements in the record at all. Therefore, the appeal is granted. The contested bail order is reversed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
