Reasons Which Weigh With Court In Cancelling Bail To Co Accused Would Also Apply On Other Accused Seeking Bail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the reasons which weigh with the Court in cancelling the bail granting to co accused would also apply in case of bail preferred by another accused in relation to the same FIR and incident. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated November 9, 2021. In the impugned judgement, the High Court had allowed the application preferred by first respondent seeking bail for the case registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench while adjudicating on the issue involved referred to its judgement dated March 5, 2021 wherein the Top Court had considered the correctness of an order dated 23 November 2020 granting bail to the co-accused, Amardeep and Bhushan arising out of the same FIR. In its judgement, the Top By the judgment of this Court dated 5 March 2021, the order of the High Court granting bail was set aside. Referring to its judgement cancelling bail to co accused, the bench while setting aside the order granting bail, the bench said, "We are unable to accept the approach of the High Court in granting bail to the first respondent despite the judgment of this Court dated 5 March 2021 having been specifically drawn to its notice. The High Court has not held that the case of the first respondent was distinguishable prima facie on facts for evaluating the case for the grant of bail. As a matter of fact, the reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same first information report and incident." The bench also directed the respondent to surrender no later than within a week from the date of this order. Liberty was also granted to the respondent to pursue remedies available in law in case of trial not being concluded within a reasonable period. Advocate Anupam Dwivedi appeared for the appellant, Advocate Saurav Trivedi appeared for the first respondent and Advocate Sarvesh Singh Baghel appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Case Title: Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Raju and Another| Criminal Appeal No 541 of 2022Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344Click Here To Read/Download Order

Reasons Which Weigh With Court In Cancelling Bail To Co Accused Would Also Apply On Other Accused Seeking Bail: Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags