Bail Application Rejected in Murder Case: Nitu Kumar vs Gulveer & Anr.

The case of Nitu Kumar vs Gulveer & Anr. is a criminal appeal against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had granted bail to the respondent, Gulveer, who was involved in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolves around an incident where Gulveer and another accused, Shekhar, allegedly killed the deceased by causing fatal injuries, with Gulveer reportedly holding the deceased while Shekhar inflicted the deadly blow. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the High Court had erred in granting bail to Gulveer, given the gravity of the offense and his involvement in the crime.

Background of the Case

On 19th June 2021, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the informant, Nitu Kumar, against Gulveer and Shekhar for the murder of a family member. According to the FIR, the respondent Gulveer caught hold of the deceased, while co-accused Shekhar inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased’s neck, causing his death. The FIR mentioned that the motive for the murder was related to a dispute between the parties, which escalated to violence. The investigation led to the arrest of Gulveer, who was later released on bail by the High Court.

The petitioner, Nitu Kumar, was aggrieved by the bail granted to Gulveer and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had not considered the seriousness and gravity of the offense, the role of Gulveer in the crime, and the need for custodial interrogation in a case involving murder. The petitioner contended that the High Court had failed to appreciate the severity of the crime when deciding on bail and argued that the respondent’s release on bail was unsustainable under the circumstances.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, represented by counsel, contended that the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Gulveer was flawed. It was argued that the gravity of the offense, which involved a brutal killing, should have been given more weight in the bail decision. The petitioner emphasized that the respondent’s role in the crime, which involved physically restraining the deceased while the fatal injury was inflicted by Shekhar, was significant. The petitioner argued that Gulveer’s actions made him equally culpable in the murder, and as such, the High Court had overlooked his direct involvement in the crime.

The petitioner further pointed out that the High Court had failed to properly consider the statements of eyewitnesses and the fact that Gulveer had been arrested and implicated in the murder. The petitioner argued that granting bail to an accused in a murder case, where the evidence and testimony were clear, was unjust and detrimental to the fair trial process. The petitioner also highlighted the fact that the seriousness of the offense should outweigh the defendant’s personal circumstances when deciding on bail.

The Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, Gulveer, represented by counsel, argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to justify denying bail. Gulveer’s counsel contended that his involvement in the crime was limited to holding the deceased, while the fatal injury was inflicted by the co-accused Shekhar. He argued that Gulveer should not be treated as equally culpable as Shekhar in the murder. The defense further emphasized that Gulveer had been in custody for a significant period and that there was no real likelihood of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The respondent’s counsel also argued that the High Court had taken into consideration the circumstances of the case and had granted bail based on the nature of the allegations. The counsel pointed out that bail had been granted in similar cases involving less severe evidence, and the High Court had acted within its discretion. The respondent’s counsel stressed that bail should be granted unless there was a clear risk of the accused interfering with the investigation or fleeing from justice, which Gulveer was not likely to do. The defense requested that the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s order, as the conditions for bail had been sufficiently met.

The Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments put forth by both the petitioner and the respondent. The Court emphasized that while the granting of bail is largely within the discretion of the lower courts, the Court also considered the seriousness of the offense, the role of the accused in the crime, and the possibility of interference with the trial process. The Court observed that the offense in question, Section 302 IPC (murder), involved a fatal injury and that the respondent’s involvement was not insignificant, even if he did not deliver the fatal blow.

The Court also considered the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail and noted that it had failed to address the gravity of the crime adequately. The Court pointed out that while bail may be granted in certain circumstances, the seriousness of a murder charge, particularly when there are eyewitness accounts implicating the accused, must be a primary consideration. The Court found that the High Court had not given sufficient weight to the role of Gulveer in the murder, especially given that his actions directly contributed to the commission of the offense.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the bail decision does not undermine the seriousness of the offense and that bail in murder cases should be granted with great caution. The Court observed that the High Court had not sufficiently examined the impact of releasing the accused on bail, especially given the nature of the offense and the potential for prejudicing the trial.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and quashed the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Gulveer. The Court directed that the respondent be remanded into custody and that the trial should proceed in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that bail in serious cases such as murder must be granted based on a thorough assessment of the evidence, the role of the accused, and the potential impact on the trial process. The Court also stated that the seriousness and gravity of the offense should be taken into account when granting bail, and any failure to do so could undermine the fairness of the trial.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant in clarifying the standard for granting bail in serious criminal cases, particularly in cases of murder. The Court reaffirmed that while bail is an important legal right, it should not be granted in cases where the accused has played a significant role in the crime, and where there is a risk of interference with the trial process. The ruling serves as a reminder to lower courts to carefully assess the seriousness of the offense and the role of the accused before granting bail in criminal cases.

Additionally, the judgment underscores the importance of giving proper weight to eyewitness testimonies and other evidence in murder cases. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that justice must be served by ensuring that accused individuals do not escape the legal process by being granted bail in cases where their release may prejudice the trial.

Petitioner Name: Nitu Kumar.
Respondent Name: Gulveer & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Judgment Date: 16-09-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: nitu-kumar-vs-gulveer-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-09-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category