Individual role and/or overt act by individual accused is not significant when all accused persons charged u/s 149 of IPC were part of unlawful assembly: SC

Read Judgment: Manno Lal Jaiswal V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, January 28, 2022: The Supreme Court has opined that when the accused were charged for the offences punishable u/s 149 of the IPC also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual accused is not significant. 

A Division Bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that the High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that all the accused were charged for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148 and 149 also along with Section 302 of the IPC and as noted by the Sessions Court, that all the accused persons with a common intention attacked the deceased by deadly weapons.  

Going by the background of the case, Manno Lal Jaiswal (Appellant) lodged an FIR against second Respondents & others (accused) for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC for murder of his son. The Respondent’s application for bail stood dismissed by the Sessions Court observing that the accused persons are named in the FIR and it has been alleged that all the accused persons with a common intention attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. The High Court however, released the respondents on bail. Hence, present appeal. 

After considering the submissions, the Top Court found that despite the fact that all the accused persons were named in the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the very day, on applying the wrong facts, the High Court has released the accused respondents on bail. 

It appears that the High Court has granted the bail to respondents in such serious offences in which one person was killed mechanically and without applying the correct facts, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Shah referred to the decision of the Top Court in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129, wherein it was observed that while granting bail, the relevant considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering.

Accordingly, the Top Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court releasing the respondents – accused on bail. 

However, the observations made in the present order be confined for the purpose of deciding the bail only and the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial and decide the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, clarified the Apex Court.