Supreme Court of India
JADUNATH SINGHversusARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 325
- Decided
- 19 April 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
Bail cannot be granted to co‑accused who have committed additional serious offences unless those facts are fully before the court, and parity does not apply where the roles and conduct differ.
Summary
Jadunath Singh appealed against the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to three convicted murderers—Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, and Rishi Kumar—who were serving life sentences for a 2011 shooting that killed two persons. While in judicial custody, Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar murdered a police constable, Ajay Kumar, and later attempted to escape, leading to separate charges. The appellant argued that the High Court had not considered these subsequent crimes and that parity with other co‑accused who were granted bail was inapplicable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail to Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar because their later violent conduct was a material fact that should have been before the court. However, since Arvind Kumar was not implicated in the constable's murder, his bail was left undisturbed. Consequently, the bail orders for Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were set aside, while the bail order for Arvind Kumar was upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the Allahabad High Court considered all relevant facts, including the subsequent murder of a police constable by two of the accused, before granting bail.
- Whether the principle of parity with other co‑accused who were granted bail applies when the accused have committed distinct and additional serious offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 224, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
BailCo-accusedParitySeriousnessRelevant facts
Judgment
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 561 : 2024 INSC 325
Jadunath Singh
v.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Etc.
Criminal Appeals No. 2170 - 2172 of 2024
(Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7961-7963 of 2023)
19 April 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the
Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar,
Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted
for life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code for offenses
including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in
Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed
with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting
in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita.
The accused were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149,
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life
imprisonment. During the trial, two of the accused, Chandra Kumar
and Rishi Kumar, murdered a police constable, Ajay Kumar, while
in judicial custody and attempted to escape, leading to additional
charges and a separate trial; Whether the High Court’s decision to
grant bail was made with all relevant facts, including the accused’s
subsequent criminal conduct, being presented before it; and
Whether the principle of parity with other co-accused who have been
granted bail is applicable in this case, given the distinct roles and
additional crimes committed by Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar.
Headnotes
Bail – Appeals arising from a Common Order passed by
Allahabad High Court – Appellants challenge the High Court’s
order granting bail to the applicants – Applicants are “dreaded
criminals” who have committed multiple murders, including the
murder of Police Constable – Appellant fears if applicants are
released on bail, they may conspire to harm the complainant
and his family members – High Court’s decision to grant bail
was made without considering all relevant facts, particularly
the applicants’ subsequent criminal conduct and the ongoing
* Author
562 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
trial for the murder of the police constable – The other co-
accused is not part of the murder of the police constable – No
interference with the bail granted to such co-accused by the
High Court. [Para 12-13]
Held: The High Court did not consider the fact of the murder of the
constable- Bail granted to the accused in the murder of the constable
is cancelled – Insofar as the other co-accused is concerned, he is
not a party to the murder of the constable – Hence, no interference
with the bail granted to the co-accused.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Bail; Co-accused; Parity; Seriousness; Relevant facts.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
2170-2172 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2023 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA Nos. 5033, 5100 and 5102 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Ravindra Singh, Sr. Adv., Raman Yadav, Syed Mehdi Imam, Ms.
Akriti Chaturvedi, Priyam Kaushik, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shashank Shekhar Singh, Ms. Pooja Singh, Abhinav Singh, Varun
Thakur, Deepak Goel, Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Dr. M.K Ravi,
Denson Joseph, M/S. Varun Thakur & Associates, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a Common Order passed by Allahabad
High Court on 08.02.2023 while adjudicating three Criminal Appeals-
Criminal Appeal No. 5033 of 2019 (Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P.),
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 563
Jadunath Singh v. Arving Kumar & Ors. Etc.
Criminal Appeal No. 5100 of 2019 (Chandra Kumar @ Chandu vs
State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 5102 of 2019 (Rishi Kumar
vs State of U.P.). The Applicants had sought for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail through these Appeals on the primary
ground that they are in jail for more than ten years. Also, two co-
accused Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar had been granted bail
by co-ordinate bench of same High Court. By the Impugned order,
the three Applicants- Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and
Rishi Kumar were granted bail during the pendency of their Criminal
appeals, with condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- each (Fifty Thousand) along with two sureties. Appellant
is the Complainant and has challenged the order of granting bail
through these appeals.
3. The three Applicants have filed separate Criminal Appeals before High
Court against order of Sessions Court dated 06.06.2019 whereby total
five Accused namely, Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, Rishi
Kumar, Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar were convicted under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 18601.
They were sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302/149
of IPC along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. By the same order two other
accused- Monu and Amit Kumar were acquitted of all the Charges.
4. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows:
4.1 On 11.02.2011, the appellant/Complainant- Jadunath Singh
submitted a Written Report narrating the incident leading to
present Criminal case. He stated that in Village Bhogaon there
is a plot illegally taken by Arvind Kumar (accused- respondent).
He was removed from its illegal possession by Rajvir, son of the
Complainant, in accordance with the order of District Magistrate.
4.2 On the same day around 11.45 AM, Complainant Jadunath
Singh along with his son Rajvir, Pawan Kumar, Rawan Kumar,
Upendra, Chedalal were sitting together, discussing the disputed
plot. At this time, Arvind Kumar, armed with country made
pistol (katta of 315 bore), his two sons-Chandra Kumar @
Chandu armed with katta and Rishi Kumar armed with katta
along with Amit Kumar, armed with a rifle and two unknown
1 In short, “IPC”
564 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
persons with rifles, arrived there in white coloured Maruti 800
Car and immediately opened fire at the complainant and all
other persons sitting with him.
4.3 The Complainant and others ran into a nearby building owned
by one Harvilas. They were chased by accused persons along
with continuous firing. They managed to intrude in the room in
which Rajvir and Pawan entered while hiding and escaping from
the shots. There the accused aimed at Rajvir and Pawan, shot
them dead and thus caused the death of both these victims
and also injured Ravita- daughter in law of Harvilas, causing
injuries upon her. Thereafter the accused persons fled away.
The injured persons were taken to Hospital.
4.4 The Medical Officer on duty declared Rajvir and Pawan Kumar
as brought dead. Ravita’s treatment is under process. As per
testimony of Dr. Ankit Nikant, Pawan’s death was caused by fire
arm injury on his chest and excessive bleeding from the same.
Rajvir’s death is caused from excessive bleeding from the 9
firearm wounds found on his body. Two injuries were found on
Rajvir’s shoulder and one injury was on his chest.
5. On the basis of the complaint given by Jadunath Singh (Appellant),
FIR No. 1411 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dist.
Mainpuri under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B of IPC
against five named accused and two unknown. After investigation
Chargesheet was submitted against all the seven accused. However,
three separate trials were registered being Session Trial No. 48 of
2013- State of U.P. vs Chandra Kumar and three others, namely
Pramod Kashyap, Aadesh Kumar and Monu, Session Trial No. 321
of 2013- State of U.P. vs Arvind Kumar and Rishi Kumar and Session
Trial No. 531 of 2013- State of U.P. vs Amit Kumar. The trials were
clubbed and the leading case was ascertained as Sessions Trial No.
48 of 2013- State vs Chandra Kumar and three others.
6. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence led during the trial,
convicted five accused namely Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar,
Pramod Kashyap, Rishi Kumar and Aadesh Kumar under Section
302/149, 147, 148 and 120-B of IPC and awarded life sentence. It,
however, acquitted two other accused namely Monu and Amit Kumar
of all the charges.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 565
Jadunath Singh v. Arving Kumar & Ors. Etc.
7. At this juncture it is relevant to note another criminal case involving
some of the present convicted accused. On 31.01.2013, two accused
viz Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar were produced before Sessions
Court at Mainpuri, while in judicial custody by Constable Ajay
Kumar. The two accused persons requested the police constable
Ajay Kumar to take them out for attending nature’s call. The police
constable Ajay Kumar went along with two accused persons along
with family members in a Maruti Car. As soon as they moved out
from the Court campus, the two accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi
Kumar opened fire on said police constable Ajay Kumar due to which
said constable died on the spot and thereafter his dead body was
thrown by the accused persons in front of the house of one Munshi
Lal. Consequently, an FIR being Case Crime No.60 of 2013 was
registered under Section 302 IPC. Charge sheet No. 29 of 2013
dated 27.07.2013 was also filed against eight accused persons- Rishi
Kumar, Chandra Kumar, Sudha- wife of Rishi Kumar, Babli- wife of
Chandra Kumar, Dharmveer, Monu, Jayshree and Ravindra Singh
under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34, 224 of IPC, with allegation
that all eight accused hatched conspiracy for committing murder of
Police Constable Ajay Kumar. The accused Chandra Kumar and
Rishi Kumar absconded and were later on arrested by STF from
Maharashtra where also they had opened fire on the police party
for which a separate FIR Case Crime No. 54 of 2013.
8. Thus, Complainant has challenged the impugned order of granting
bail on primary ground that the accused persons are dreaded
criminals as initially they have committed two murders and later co-
accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, the sons of co-accused
Arvind Kumar killed a Police Constable Ajay Kumar while he was
on duty during the course of trial. Therefore, Complainant fears that
after being released from jail, they will hatch another conspiracy for
eliminating the complainant and his family members.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
10. The High Court has granted bail taking into consideration the following
two factors:
i) Period of incarceration;
ii) Two other co-accused have been granted bail.
566 [2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. It appears that before the High Court, the fact relating to the murder
of Ajay Kumar Police Constable in whose custody the accused
Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were produced before the Trial
Court at Mainpuri and further, the fact that they had absconded after
throwing the dead body of deceased Constable Ajay Kumar and
later on arrested by Special Task Force (STF) from Maharashtra
and during their arrest also they had resisted and opened fire on the
police party for which a separate case was registered. Such facts
have not been placed before the High Court. These were relevant
facts which ought to have been placed before the High Court. The
parity mentioned by the High Court in the impugned order relating
to Adesh Kumar and Pramod Kashyap was clearly distinguishable
not only with respect to their role in the case in hand but also, they
were not involved in the murder of Ajay Kumar Police Constable.
12. In our considered opinion, two accused respondents namely Chandra
Kumar and Rishi Kumar despite their period of incarceration of
more than 10 years would not be entitled to grant of bail for their
subsequent conduct for which they are facing separate trial.
13. Insofar as Arvind Kumar is concerned, he is not charge sheeted in the
murder case of Ajay Kumar as such we are not inclined to interfere
with the order of the High Court granting bail to him i.e. Arvind
Kumar. However, insofar as the other two accused Rishi Kumar and
Chandra Kumar are concerned, their bail deserves to be cancelled.
14. Accordingly, the appeal against Arvind Kumar is dismissed, and
other two appeals i.e. against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar
are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court granting bail to
Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar is set aside. They may surrender
within two weeks failing which the High court will take appropriate
steps for taking them into custody using coercive measures as are
permissible under law.
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor Appeals disposed of.
(Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Bail"Sign in to search