HC: The nature of the accusation against the accused is a paramount consideration while granting anticipatory bail or regular bail to an accused

  

On 14^th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Mukta Gupta while hearing a petition for cancelling anticipatory bail of the accused held that the nature of accusation against the accused is a paramount consideration while granting anticipatory bail or regular bail to an accused.  The court on observing that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was conscious of the said facts of the case and thus there was no ground for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent.

Facts of the case:

The present petition was filed by the father of victim Sushil seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Chankya Mann charged under Section 307 IPC registered at PS Alipur, Delhi granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 9th April, 2021. Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar was arrested on 15th February, 2021 who disclosed that injured Sushil had been stalking his cousin for few months which was opposed by the family members. Earlier also Gaurav s/o Naresh Kumar had warned Sushil many times to stay away from his sister which was not acceded to by the victim. Thus to teach a lesson to Sushil, on 14th February, 2021 he along with his friend Chankya Mann @ Sanju had heated arguments with the injured Sushil, whereafter they hit him with bricks on his head and fled away from the place of incident.

Contention of the petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the following:

1. It was submitted that the the impugned order dated 9th April, 20201 is perverse for the reason that the learned Trial Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the co-accused who had no role in the offence, however granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 who had the main role in causing injuries to Sushil.
2. It was also argued that the defence put up in the FIR lodged by the co-accused that the victim was teasing the cousin sister of Gaurav is only an afterthought as the said FIR was lodged subsequently.
3. It was also urged that the petitioner apprehends threat from the respondent No.2.
4. It was further submitted that the efforts were made to arrest the respondent No.2 however, he was found absconding hence non-bailable warrants qua the respondent No.2 were taken from the Court of learned CMM
5. Lastly, it was submitted that in the view of the gravity of the offence, the order granting anticipatory bail is perverse on facts as well as on law and has resulted in travesty of justice to the petitioner and his son.

Contention of the Respondent:

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand argued on the following ground:

1. At the outset it was contended that the petition seeking cancellation of bail was not maintainable as the petitioner is neither the complainant nor the victim.
2. It was also submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded after a long duration. No motive to commit the offence is attributable to the respondent No.2 who was only a friend of Gaurav.
3. It was also argued that the dispute, if any, was between Gaurav and the victim and not with respondent No.2. One of the co-accused Gaurav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence even on parity it cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse.
4. It was also submitted that Charge-sheet has already been filed and thus the respondent No.2 is not required for investigation.

Observation and judgement of the court:

 

The hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:

1. Petitioner who is the father of injured seeks cancellation of bail on the ground that the impugned order is perverse, has resulted in miscarriage of justice and not on the ground that after the grant of anticipatory bail the respondent No.2 misused the concession granted to him, the only averment on this count being that the petitioner and his son apprehends threat, though there is no material to substantiate this apprehension.
2. Vide the impugned order though the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted some of the relevant factors like the respondent No.2 is a student, however it failed to note the most important factor i.e. the nature of accusation against the accused and injuries caused in the reasoning.

As noted above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge though failed to note the relevant factor was conscious of all the material facts which were placed before the Court. Thus, the Court found that there was no ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent.

Read Judgment ;

 

 SOURCE ; .latestlaws.com

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.