Uttarakhand High Court
8 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:5308
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 81 of 2025
18 June, 2025
Suresh Sharma ............... Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
............Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budlakoti, learned counsel Counsel for the State: Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A.
and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder Counsel for the Complainant: Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan and Mr. Jeetendra Gupta, learned counsel.
(Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. The instant second bail application is moved by the present applicant Suresh Sharma praying for bail in relation to Session Trial No. 1 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 1 of 1999 in which the applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 25 and 25/4 of the Arms Act at P.S. Badrinath, District Chamoli.
2. Brief facts, of the case, are that an FIR was lodged by one Pooran Singh Mehra on 28.04.1999 by raising allegations that the present applicant first used country made pistol but the same missed and thereafter he inflicted knife blows on the deceased due to which the deceased died. As per the FIR, one Kalpeshwar Bhatt, in addition to the complainant was the eye witness of the incident. The applicant was arrested on the same day, i.e., on 28.04.1999 at 10:30 am. Thereafter, the applicant applied for bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected and then he approached to the High Court Judicature at Allahabad.
Thereafter, by order dated 08.06.1999, the High 1 2025:UHC:5308 Court judicature at Allahabad enlarged the applicant on bail which is being reproduced herein as under:-
BY THE COURT "Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal holding brief of Sri V.P Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri J.S. Sengar learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
It is contended by the appellant's counsel that as per the F.I.R version the applicant first used country made pistol but the same missed and thereafter he inflicted knife blows on the deceased while holding another Tamancha in his other hand. However, the post mortem report revealed that all the injuries sustained by the deceased were lacerated wounds. Learned counsel also argued that having regard to the condition of the stomach and to the medical discrepancy, the possibility of the murder having been committed in early hours of the day cannot be ruled out. On the other hand Sri Sengar argued that a blood stained knife was found on the spot and at this stage it cannot be said that the said knife was not used in the commission of crime.
It would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to make any positive observation either way on the rival contentions of the rival parties as the same may unnecessarily prejudice the mind of the trial court but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Suresh Sharma involved in case Crime No. 1/99 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Badrinath District Chamoli be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Chamoli.
Sd/-J.C. Gupta J, 8.6.99"
3. Thereafter the daughter of the deceased "Babita" Bhatt approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order granting bail by the High Court by preferring Special 2 2025:UHC:5308 Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3056-3058 of 1999 and the Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.09.1999 passed the following order:-
"Permission to file SLP is allowed.
Issue notice. We suspend the impugned order and direct the Sessions Court concerned to put the second respondent back in jail."
4. Though, the order granting bail by the High Court was suspended by the Hon'ble Apex Court with a direction to the Sessions Court to put the applicant back in jail but the applicant could not be arrested and absconded, and, ultimately on 04.02.2000, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the appeal with the following direction:-
"Leave granted.
It is unfortunate that the High Court has released the accused (2nd respondent -Suresh Sharma) on bail without adverting to any valid reason at all. The very fact that 2nd respondent- accused has not become untraceable is proof positive that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has not taken into account all aspects while granting bail to him. It is reported by the State (1st respondent) that 2nd respondent is absconding now.
The Sessions judge also reported to the same effect. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Sessions Judge to continue the efforts to get the 2nd respondent arrested and put him back in jail and he will be detained in jail during the trial period.
These appeals are accordingly disposed of.
5. Though the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the appeal on 04.02.2000 but the applicant was never been arrested and, in fact, the order of the Apex Court could not be complied with. Almost after 24 years, the Special Task Force of the State arrested the applicant on 23.01.2025 from Jharkhand.
6. Thereafter, the applicant moved discharge application on several grounds and one of the grounds was that before arrest, the constitutional mandate was not complied with, 3 2025:UHC:5308 particularly Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and, furthermore, this is a case of false implication and the deceased was the history sheeter. The discharge application was rejected by the learned District and Session Judge, Chamoli on 10.03.2025.
Thereafter, the applicant preferred second bail application before the Sessions Court with the same grounds, as taken in discharge application, however, the same was also rejected by the Sessions Court on 05.04.2025.
7. After rejection of second bail application by the Sessions Court, the present applicant preferred the instant second bail application.
8. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant argued that before arrest of the applicant constitutional mandate was not complied with and before suspending the order granting bail by the High Court Judicature at Allahabad no opportunity was given by the Hon'ble apex Court which amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.
9. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, questioned the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court suspending the order of bail, granted by the High Court. In support of his submission Mr. Sharma placed reliance on Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mahabir and others vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC184 and referred para 4, 5 and 98, which are being extracted herein as under:-
4. "There is no higher principle for the guidance of the court than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied, but for that mistake."4
2025:UHC:5308
5. The above is aptly summed up in the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit". It implies that judicial actions should not unfairly harm any party and that courts should act judiciously to prevent errors that could lead to injustice. (Jang Sing v. Brij Lal and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631).
98. Judges are human beings and at times they do commit mistakes. The sheer pressure of work at times may lead to such errors. At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, we hold the State Government responsible. It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor. The State Government should be asked to pay compensation to the three appellants herein.
10. The another judgment which has been relied upon is the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, ie. in the case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya vs. Rajendra Rajak and others, (2006) 7 SCC 800 and he referred para 8, 9, 10 and 11 which are being reproduced herein as under:-
"8. Natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary.
9. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, 1963 (143) ER 414, the principle was thus stated:
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam', says God, 'where art thou' has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that 'thou should not eat'."
10. Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. In Mullooh v. Aberdeen , it was stated : (AII ER p. 1279e) "The right of a man to be heard in his defence is the most elementary protection......."
11. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice."
52025:UHC:5308
11. In addition to this, Mr. Sharma placed reliance on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 439 and particularly he placed reliance upon para 37 and 57. Further, he also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jang Singh vs. Brij Lal and others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 219 and submits that it is the bounden duty of the Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.
12. In addition to aforesaid judgments, Mr. Sharma also placed reliance on Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs. The State of Gujarat, (1974) 2 SCC 121 by placing reliance of para 7 and 19 and submits that without giving ground of arrest, the arrest of the applicant is bad in law and, as such, he deserves for bail.
13. In reference to his argument that before directing the Sessions Court to take the applicant in custody no opportunity was given, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.S. Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2011) 6 SCC 570 and by placing reliance of para 31 he submits that since the directions were issued to the Sessions Court to take the applicant in custody behind his back, and, as such, the order of Apex Court should be ignored while considering the instant second bail application. In support of his argument he placed reliance also on another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of M/s Gen Next Motors Limited vs. M/s Nissan Renault Financial Services India Limited and another, 2019 0Supreme 6 2025:UHC:5308 (Mad) 307 and submits that it is settled principle of law that no order can be passed behind back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice
14. Mr. Sharma also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vipin Kumar vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2025 decided on 13.02.2025. In this case earlier the bail application of the appellant was allowed by the High Court but subsequently it was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter a fresh bail application was moved before the High Court but the same was rejected solely on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court while cancelling the bail granted by the High Court had not given any liberty to the appellant to file a fresh bail application. In para 4 and 6 of this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
4. There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in cancelling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit.
5. Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter canceled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated 31.05.2024 passed by the High Court rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for decision afresh on merits.
15. In addition to the aforesaid judgments, as relied upon, Mr. Sharma placed also placed reliance on various judgments which are as follows: Ramesh Motilal 7 2025:UHC:5308 Khandelwal vs. Zilla Parishad, Akola, 1992 Mh.L.J. 325;
Jeeshan and another vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Criminal Misc. Writ petition no. 10974 of 2020, 2021 SCC OnLine All 85; Jagannath Temple Managing Committee vs. Siddha Math and others, (2015) 16 SCC 572 ; Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 and also para 21(f) of the judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and others vs. Keshub Mahindra and others, (2011) 6 SCC 216
16. By referring aforesaid judgments Mr. Sharma argued that seeking bail is the statutory right of the applicant and the same cannot be curtailed without giving an opportunity. By placing reliance of so many judgments Mr. Sharma, argued that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by a well reasoned order granted bail to the applicant, however, without giving any opportunity of hearing the order was suspended with the further direction to the Sessions Court to take the applicant in custody. Apart from this, he submits that the Sessions Court while rejecting the second bail application have not considered this aspect that at the time of arrest the applicant was not provided the ground of arrest which are in fact the constitutional mandate, and, as such, the arrest of the applicant is bad and, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail. He submits that the Sessions Court being influenced with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court reject the bail application of the applicant. He further submits that even if the Hon'ble Apex Court reject the bail application, his successive bail application cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the Apex Court cancelled his bail , as seeking bail is the statutory right of the applicant.
82025:UHC:5308
17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that successive bail applications are not maintainable if fresh ground are not available but surprisingly no such grounds have been taken by the applicant, and, therefore, the instant second bail application is not maintainable at all.
18. In response to the argument of Mr. Sharma that no ground of arrest was provided to the applicant before arrest which took place in the year 1999, learned A.G.A. submits that the arguments in this regard is thoroughly misconceived, since, the applicant was granted bail by the High Court Judicature at Allahabad but subsequently, the judgment was stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court with a direction to the Sessions Court to take him back in custody, therefore, this ground is not at all available to the applicant to seek bail in successive bail application.
19. Learned A.G.A. also submits that questioning the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court that too in successive bail application is wholly unwarranted, particularly when the applicant never make an attempt to put his appearance before the Hon'ble Apex Court, though, when the judgment of the High Court Judicature at Allahabad was stayed notices were issued to the applicant.
By advancing the aforesaid submissions Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant does not deserve for bail because of his conduct since the applicant was absconding for last 25 years
20. Per contra, Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate who appears for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application by advancing the following submissions:-
92025:UHC:5308
(a) The applicant instead of putting his appearance through counsel before the Hon'ble Apex Court absconded due to which the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court could not be complied with by the Sessions Court.
(b) The SLP was disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2000 and for 25 years the applicant was absconding and he was arrested by the Special Task Force from Jharkhand, and, as such, the conduct of the applicant is nothing but to avoid to face the trial. She further submits that since no fresh ground is available for seeking bail in successive bail application, therefore the applicant does not deserve for bail. For rest Ms. Pushpa Joshi, adopts the argument of learned A.G.A.
21. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further gone through with the judgments ,as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the view that the past conduct of the applicant reveals that the applicant was avoiding to face the trial. It is very strange that the applicant was absconding since last 25 years and even he has not make any attempt to put appearance before the Hon'ble Apex Court through his counsel. The applicant was arrested from Jharkhand by Special Task Force, and, therefore, keeping in view the past conduct of the applicant, this Court does not find any merit in the instant second bail application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul 10 2025:UHC:5308 11