Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Two Accused in Uttar Pradesh Double Murder Case

The case of Jadunath Singh vs. Arvind Kumar & Anr. revolves around a violent double murder in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the Allahabad High Court had erred in granting bail to the accused despite their long criminal history, serious allegations, and involvement in multiple violent crimes.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, Uttar Pradesh. According to the FIR filed by the complainant, Jadunath Singh, the dispute arose over a piece of land that was illegally occupied by one of the accused, Arvind Kumar. After an order from the District Magistrate, the complainant’s son, Rajvir, removed Arvind Kumar’s illegal possession of the plot.

Later that day, at around 11:45 AM, the accused Arvind Kumar, his two sons Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar, along with Amit Kumar and two unidentified persons, arrived in a white Maruti 800 car armed with firearms. They opened fire on the complainant and others who were discussing the land dispute. The complainant and his companions ran into a nearby building belonging to one Harvilas, but the accused followed them, cornered them, and fired multiple rounds, killing Rajvir and Pawan Kumar and injuring Ravita, the daughter-in-law of Harvilas.

The victims were rushed to the hospital, where Rajvir and Pawan were declared brought dead. The post-mortem reports confirmed that both had died from multiple gunshot wounds and excessive bleeding.

Legal Proceedings and Convictions

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR (No. 1411 of 2011) was registered under:

Section 147 IPC – Rioting
Section 148 IPC – Rioting with deadly weapons
Section 149 IPC – Unlawful assembly with common intent
Section 302 IPC – Murder
Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder
Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy

The accused were arrested and underwent trial. The Sessions Court convicted Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, Rishi Kumar, Pramod Kashyap, and Adesh Kumar, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000 each.

Two other accused, Monu and Amit Kumar, were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

High Court Bail Grant

While their appeals were pending, the accused Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar filed bail applications before the Allahabad High Court. They argued that they had already served more than ten years in jail and that two co-accused, Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar, had been granted bail.

The High Court granted bail to all three accused, requiring them to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each along with two sureties.

Arguments by the Appellant (Complainant – Jadunath Singh)

The accused were repeat offenders with a long history of violent crimes.
Their release posed a direct threat to the complainant and his family.
During judicial custody in a separate case in 2013, accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar murdered a police constable while being escorted to court.
The accused had absconded after killing the constable and were later arrested in Maharashtra, where they opened fire on the police.
The High Court overlooked critical facts and granted bail without considering the accused’s past conduct.

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused – Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, and Rishi Kumar)

They had already spent over ten years in jail.
Two co-accused had been granted bail, and their cases were similar.
The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence for conviction.
The allegations of threatening witnesses were baseless.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to consider crucial factors while granting bail:

Criminal Background: “The accused were not just involved in a single crime but had committed multiple violent offenses, including the murder of a police officer while in judicial custody.”
Threat to Public Safety: “Given their history of violent crimes, releasing them on bail poses a serious threat to the complainant and other witnesses.”
Wrongful Parity: “The High Court granted bail based on parity with other accused, ignoring the fact that Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar had additional murder charges.”

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The High Court’s decision to grant bail is erroneous. Given the gravity of the offenses committed, the accused are not entitled to bail.”

Supreme Court’s Final Order

The appeal against Arvind Kumar was dismissed since he was not involved in the 2013 police murder case.
The appeals against Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar were allowed.
The High Court’s order granting bail to Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar was set aside.
Both accused were directed to surrender within two weeks. If they failed to do so, the High Court was instructed to take coercive measures to ensure their custody.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

Bail should not be granted to habitual offenders with a history of violent crimes.
Courts must consider the threat to witnesses before granting bail.
Judicial parity must be applied correctly, considering the different roles of co-accused.
Serious offenses committed during trial proceedings can justify denying bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that accused individuals with a record of violent crimes are not granted bail without due consideration. By canceling the bail of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, the Court reinforced its commitment to protecting witnesses and maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Petitioner Name: Jadunath Singh.
Respondent Name: Arvind Kumar & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Place Of Incident: Bhogaon, 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: jadunath-singh-vs-arvind-kumar-&-anr.-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 Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kumar
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Stayed
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