Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mohd. Shahnawaz vs Naresh on 9 May, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1432 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4586/2019)
MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NARESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5958/2019)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 38715/2018 (in the case of accused-Naresh) and order dated 08.05.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10709/2018 (in the case of accused-Teekam Singh), by which the High Court has directed to enlarge Respondent No.1-accused (in both the Appeals) on bail in Case Crime No. 1036/2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504, 436, 336 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Sahar, District Bijnor, the injured eye-witnesses have preferred the present Appeals.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.05.11
3. 16:27:51 IST Reason: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in directing to release 2 respondent-accused - Naresh on bail. It is vehemently submitted that the High Court has observed in the impugned judgment and order that with respect to the respondent-accused - Naresh, the Police had exonerated him. It is submitted that, however, the High Court has not appreciated and/or considered the fact that though named in the FIR, the respondent-accused – Naresh was not charge-sheeted, a protest petition was filed and pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial Court, he has been arrayed as an accused. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court arraying Naresh as an accused has the attained finality. It is submitted that therefore, it is factually incorrect to say that the accused Naresh had been exonerated.
4. It is further submitted that, even on merits also, the High Court has not at all considered the nature and seriousness of the offences alleged and the manner in which the incident had taken place in which 3 persons died and 14 persons came to be injured.
5. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing to release the respondent-accused - Teekam Singh, it is submitted that, as such, the High Court has not at all considered the case of Teekam Singh at all and the High Court has considered the facts of the accused-Naresh. It is submitted that, as such, Teekam Singh was also named in the FIR and was also charge-sheeted. It is submitted that even in the case of Teekam Singh also, the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations.
6. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the State has supported the appellants. 3
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-Naresh and Teekam Singh, while opposing the present Appeals has vehemently submitted that as the accused - Naresh and Teekam Singh have been released on bail, as far back as in the year 2019 and therefore, the present order may not be interfered with by this Court.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court directing to release/enlarge the respondent-accused, namely, Naresh and Teekam Singh on bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504, 436, 336 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the manner in which the incident had taken place in which three persons have died and 14 persons have sustained the injuries. So far as the accused-Naresh is concerned, while enlarging him on bail, the High Court has observed that he had been exonerated by the Police. However, it is required to be noted that, initially, though named in the FIR, Naresh was not charge-sheeted and thereafter protest application was filed on behalf of the injured/informant and thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, he has been arrayed as an accused and the said order has attained the finality. Therefore, factually it is incorrect to say that he had been exonerated. Therefore, the High Court has directed to enlarge the accused Naresh on bail on the incorrect facts.
9. Now, so far as the accused Teekam Singh is concerned, on considering the impugned order passed by the High Court in the case 4 of Teekam Singh, it appears that the High Court has not at all considered the allegations against the said Teekam Singh. Erroneously the High Court has considered the facts in the case of accused Naresh. In fact, the entire order passed in the case of Naresh has been reproduced verbatim, while deciding the bail application in the case of accused Teekam Singh. Therefore, as such, there is no independent application of mind by the High Court so far as the accused Teekam Singh is concerned.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court enlarging the respondent accused, namely, Naresh and Teekam Singh on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 1036/2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504, 436, 336 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Sahar, District Bijnor deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matters are to be remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the bail applications afresh in accordance with law and on merits and on taking into consideration the relevant materials collected during the course of the investigation forming part of the charge sheet and/or the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the protest application filed on behalf of the Complainant by which the accused Naresh has been subsequently arrayed as an accused.
11. However, as the respondent-accused are on bail since 2019, at present, we do not pass any order directing them to surrender. However, they shall have to abide by the order that may be passed by the High Court on remand. In case the High Court refuses to release them on bail on merits, then in that case, necessary 5 consequences may follow and they shall have to surrender before the competent Court/Jail Authority within the time which may be granted by the High Court.
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to decide and dispose of the applications afresh in accordance with law and in light of the observations and subject to the above rider.
13. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the bail applications, on remand, at the earliest and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the present order.
All concerned are directed to cooperate with the High Court in early disposal of the bail applications on merits and within the time stated hereinabove.
The present Appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
May 09, 2023
6
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4586/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2019 in CRMBA No. 38715/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ Petitioner(s) VERSUS NARESH & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 76881/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 124021/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. & IA No. 76884/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. WITH SLP(Crl) No. 5958/2019 (II) IA No. 84172/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 84171/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 09-05-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv.
Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv.
Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Kamlesh Maurya, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. Dinesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Manu Parashar, Adv.
Mrs. Neha Shenker, Adv.
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Amit Pratap Shaunak, Adv.
Mr. Swapnil Azad Shukla, Adv.
7Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AOR Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Utsav Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The present Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)