Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Accused in Uttar Pradesh Murder Case

The case of Ramayan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around the grant of bail to two accused in a brutal murder case. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court had erred in granting bail to the accused despite serious allegations, the nature of the crime, and potential witness intimidation.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on January 2, 2022, in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the appellant, Ramayan Singh, the deceased, Jitendra Singh, along with the appellant and his driver, was returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by a group of assailants, including Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal.

The assailants:

Verbally abused the deceased.
Smashed the vehicle’s windows with iron rods.
Dragged the deceased out of the vehicle.
Physically assaulted him with iron rods, hockey sticks, and bats, intending to kill him.
Attacked the appellant and the driver when they tried to intervene.
Snatched the mobile phones and a gold chain from the deceased.

Following the brutal assault, Jitendra Singh was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries on February 10, 2022.

Legal Proceedings and Bail Grant

The accused, Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal, were arrested on January 5, 2022, and January 7, 2022, respectively. A chargesheet was filed against them under:

Sections 147, 148, 149 (Unlawful assembly, Rioting)
Sections 323, 504, 506 (Voluntarily causing hurt, Intentional insult, Criminal intimidation)
Sections 427, 394, 411 (Mischief, Robbery, Dishonestly receiving stolen property)
Section 302 IPC (Murder)
Section 120B IPC (Criminal conspiracy)
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013

The Trial Court rejected their bail applications, but the Allahabad High Court granted them bail on April 24, 2023, and October 31, 2023, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (Complainant)

The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the crime.
The accused were influential and could threaten witnesses.
The accused had already intimidated a key witness who had sought police protection.
The murder was committed in broad daylight, causing terror in the locality.
The Trial Court had correctly denied bail, and the High Court ignored relevant factors.

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused)

The accused had cooperated with the investigation and had no intention of intimidating witnesses.
The bail was granted based on the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
The complainant was falsely portraying them as threats to stall the trial.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s order and found several flaws:

The High Court ignored the seriousness of the offense: “Granting bail in a daylight murder case where the accused used deadly weapons sends the wrong message to society.”
Potential for witness intimidation: The Court noted reports of threats to the complainant and witnesses.
Evidence against the accused: The police had recovered weapons, and witness testimonies strongly pointed to their involvement.
Impact on public order: The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused’s influence led to local shops shutting down for ten days after the incident.

Based on these findings, the Court ruled:

“The High Court’s order granting bail is unsustainable and must be set aside. The accused pose a threat to witnesses and public confidence in justice will be shaken if they remain free.”

Supreme Court’s Final Order

The bail granted to Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal was cancelled.
The accused were ordered to be taken into custody immediately.
The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within one year.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

Bail in serious crimes must be carefully scrutinized, especially where witness safety is at risk.
High Courts must balance individual liberty with public interest.
Threats to witnesses are valid grounds for bail cancellation.
Timely trial completion is crucial in cases involving public safety concerns.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that granting bail in cases involving violent crimes must be based on strong legal reasoning. The decision underscores the importance of protecting witnesses and ensuring that accused persons do not misuse bail to derail justice. By ordering the immediate arrest of the accused, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding justice and maintaining public confidence in the legal system.

Petitioner Name: Ramayan Singh.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Basti, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 19-04-2024.

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

Download Judgment: ramayan-singh-vs-the-state-of-uttar-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-04-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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