Supreme Court sets aside history sheeter’s bail in an air firing and deadly assault case resulting in one death

Supreme Court: The division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh J.J., exercising its power under the criminal appellate jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the respondent who had inflicted gunshot injuries on the appellant and subsequently also killed the elder brother of the appellant in broad day light.

The appellant contended that in an attempt to show supremacy, the respondent using a licensed revolver and one illegal weapon fired at the appellant and his brother and even assaulted them with lathi and saria. The respondents, who also had criminal history had fired in air in an open market in order to create terror.

The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to the respondent and without commenting on the merits of the case had explained that the statements of the witnesses disclosed that the applicant had only fired in the air. It was another co-accused Khurshid Alam who had directly fired at the appellants. Further, the Court also considered the fact that the applicant had fairly explained his criminal history and relied upon Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497 which justified enlarging the respondent on bail.

The Court took note of the fact that the respondent had eight pending First Information Reports against him, out of which he had been acquitted in five cases. Further, examination of witnesses including the public witness was in progress, however, the appellant's statement was yet to be recorded.

The Court stated that the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent.

The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court which granted bail to the respondent with the direction to the respondent to surrender within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which coercive action be taken by the police to detain the respondent into custody.

[Nuruddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 52, decided on 16-01-2023]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the appellant- Advocate Maroof Khan, Advocate Rauf Rahim and Advocate on Record Rajeev Singh

For the respondent- Additional Advocate General Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocate on Record Rohit K. Singh, Advocate Shreya Srivastava, Advocate Ashish Madaan, Advocate Ashish Madaan, Advocate Ananya Sahu, Advocate Shweta Yadav, Senior Advocate Rajesh K. Khanna, Advocate on Record Niraj Gupta, Advocate Anshu Gupta


*Simran Singh, Editorial Assistant has put this brief together.

Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.