Supreme Court: In a case concerning the kidnapping and murder of a nineteen-year-old, a Division Bench comprising N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan, JJ. observed that the Allahabad High Court had virtually absolved the accused while considering their bail pleas. The Court noted that the High Court had practically given a “clean chit” to the accused at a preliminary stage, an approach the Bench found improper and legally unsustainable.
Background
The case stems from the abduction of a young university student from Bennett University, whose body was later recovered near Amroha. The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence: mobile location data placing the accused near the scene, ransom calls, and recoveries of the vehicle, spade, and mobile phone allegedly used in the offence.
The accused persons had filed applications seeking bail before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, by its judgment and order allowed the bail applications, making certain observations regarding the evidence on record.
The High Court had observed that, except for the recovery of the dead body, the prosecution’s case primarily relied on the location of the mobile phones of the accused persons, which were found in the vicinity of Bennett University and the place of recovery. The High Court held that such evidence only created doubt and was insufficient to conclude the involvement of the accused in the crime at that stage.
Similarly, the High Court found that the recovery of a Swift car, a mobile phone, and a spade on the pointing out of one accused could not, by itself, establish his involvement in the crime in the absence of any evidence showing that he was last seen with the deceased.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused the High Court’s judgment and noted that the High Court had effectively given a “clean chit” to the accused while deciding the bail applications, which was not appropriate at that stage of proceedings.
The Court said that the High Court had engaged in a factual analysis more suited to trial than to a bail hearing.
The Court held that the High Court had erred in entering into the merits of the case while considering bail and had virtually exonerated the accused at the preliminary stage.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Court granted liberty to the accused to approach the High Court or the Trial Court again for bail, which was to be decided without being influenced by any observation made in the High Court’s earlier order or in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The appeals were thus disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
[Pradeep Mittal v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2424, decided on 04-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv., Mr. Harish Malik, Adv., Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey, AOR, Mr. Loveleen Kaithwas, Adv., Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Ravi, Adv., Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhry, Adv., Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv., Mrs. Pooja H Sonkar, Adv., Mr. Vikrm A Seth, Adv., Mr. L.n. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ankit Kumar Shiv, Adv., Mr. Rajender Kumar, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar Rai, Adv., Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saurav Sharma, Adv., Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR, Mr. Savyasachi, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Sidak Kalra, Adv.
