SUDHA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                         [2021] 4 S.C.R. 95                             95


                          SUDHA SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
           THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2021)
                            APRIL 23, 2021                              B
             [S.A. BOBDE, CJI, A.S. BOPANNA AND
                   V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
       Bail: Bail granted to accused arrested with respect to the
offence punishable under s.3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Accused alleged to be a      C
contract killer and sharp shooter and allegedly murdered husband
of the appellant in conspiracy with others – Previously he was
prosecuted in 15 cases for serious offences including murder, attempt
to murder and criminal conspiracy – High Court granted bail to the
accused on liberal terms – Appeal by complainant – Held: High           D
Court overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to
witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection – In cases of
this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on
bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the
parties before them and the incident in question – High Court simply
ignored the antecedents of the accused and the potential to repeat      E
his acts by organising his criminal activities – High Court’s order
granting bail is set aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The High Court has overlooked several aspects,
                                                                        F
such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court
to grant protection. It is necessary for courts to consider the
impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the
witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the
family of the victim who might be the next victims. [Para 8]
[97-H; 98-A-B]                                                          G
     2. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a
person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to
recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/
witnesses, if such accused is released on bail. [Para 12][99-B]
                                                                        H
                                 95
96            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A          Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : [ 2014]
           12 SCR 453; Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012)
           9 SCC 446 : [2012] 7 SCR 584; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
           v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 :
           [2010] 12 SCR 1165 – relied on.
B                             Case Law Reference
     [2014] 12 SCR 453                 relied on                 Para 9
     [2012] 7 SCR 584                  relied on                 Para 10
     [2010] 12 SCR 1165                relied on                 Para 11
C          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No. 448 of 2021.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2020 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
     No. 3623 of 2018.
D
           Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Ms. Ashmita Bisarya, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
          Ms. Srishti Singh, Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
E          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                  JUDGMENT
           1. Leave granted.
           2. This is a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad
F    High Court granting bail to the accused who has been arrested with
     respect to the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster
     and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
           3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased victim namely Rajnarain
     Singh who has been allegedly murdered by the accused, who is
G    Respondent No. 2 herein, in conspiracy with others. A First Information
     Report bearing Case Crime Number 200 of 2015, P.S.-Sodhari, Distt.-
     Azamgarh, was registered in that regard and a charge sheet for offences
     under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
     3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused. The
     accused is alleged to be a contract killer and a sharpshooter. In fact,
H
 SUDHA SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                               97


previously, the accused has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for serious        A
offences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy.
       4. According to the prosecution, the accused along with other
persons operate an organized crime gang in Azamgarh that allegedly
commits offences punishable under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the Indian
Penal Code. The very purpose of the gang is to make physical and                B
financial gains by committing innumerable crimes of serious nature. It is
also stated that this gang instills extreme fear and terror in the area
where it operates thereby precluding persons from coming forward and
lodging police complaints against its activities, or for that matter deposing
in cases pertaining thereof.
                                                                                C
       5. By the order impugned in this criminal appeal, the Allahabad
High Court granted bail to the accused herein on very liberal terms, such
as the execution of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the jail
Authorities and the furnishing of sureties within a month of his release.
The High court has simply ignored the antecedents of the accused and
the potential to repeat his acts by organising his criminal activities.         D

       6. It is stated by the appellant, who is the wife of the deceased
victim that the conduct of the accused during the trial of the case in
Case No. 511 of 2016 has been one of non cooperation, by not cross
examining the witnesses first, then praying for their recall and then
threatening witnesses through his henchmen. In fact, the conduct of the         E
accused impelled the Sessions court to direct the police to provide security
in the court during the trial and provide security to the witnesses.
       7. It is also contended by the appellant that the grant of bail in a
routine manner to gangsters, has had an adverse effect in the past, upon
the law and order situation. The appellant cites the example of a person        F
who was prosecuted in connection with 64 criminal cases which included
cases of murders, offences of dacoity, criminal intimidation, extortion
and offences under the UP-Gangster Act, etc., but who was released
on bail. Ultimately, when a police team went to apprehend him in a case,
allegedly 8 policemen were killed and many grievously injured. Therefore,       G
the appellant contends that courts must be extremely careful in releasing
of history sheeters who have been charged with serious offences like
murder, rape or other kinds of bodily harms several times.
      8. We find in this case that the high court has overlooked several
aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court
                                                                                H
98                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A    to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature,
     it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered
     vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the
     incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that
     release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be
     examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who
B
     might be the next victims.
            9. This Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P.1 held that when
     a stand was taken that the accused was a history sheeter, it was
     imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not
     capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail
C    on the ground of parity.
           10. In Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh2, this Court observed
     that when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences
     were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the
     courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It
D    emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal
     antecedents of the accused.
            11. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and
     Another3, it was held that this Court ordinarily would not interfere with
     a High Court’s order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. Nonetheless,
E    it was equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretion
     judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a
     catena of decisions of this Court. The factors laid down in the judgment
     were:
            (i)     Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to
F                   believe that the accused had committed the offence;
            (ii)    nature and gravity of accusations;
            (iii)   severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;
            (iv)    danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail;
G           (v)     character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
                    the accused;

     1
       (2014) 16 SCC 508
     2
       (2012) 9 SCC 446
     3
H      (2010) 14 SCC 496
 SUDHA SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                                 99


       (vi)     likelihood of repetition of the offence;                          A
       (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
             and
       (viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
       12. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person     B
charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the
potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused
is released on bail.
      13. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the
Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused.                                C

Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed .




                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H