Bail application filed under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 may be rejected if the nature of the offence is serious, the injuries are grave and if there is likelihood of the applicant getting convicted for the offence. This was decreed by Hon’ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma saying, “it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth because it is likely to influence the trial court, but, from the perusal of the evidence, collected during the investigation, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this crime. No reason is found to implicate the applicant. Therefore, there is no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and no good ground has been made out for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage, therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected” in Sukhpal Vs. State of Uttarakhand [First Bail Application NO. 1197 of 2020].
The facts of the case are, an FIR was launched against the applicant and 2 co-accused according to which the informant and Prem Shankar were travelling on a bike where the applicant was an obstruction. He was asked to move aside, which resulted in misbehavior and led to physical assault. Aggrieved by this, the applicants and the co-accused brought out weapons and assaulted Prem Shankar which resulted in grievous injuries. Prem Shankar was declared dead on arrival. The applicant and the co-accused were arrested. The applicant has applied for a bail on grounds of self-defense thus lacking the intent to commit the crime. However, the counsel for the respondent submits that there was adequate time between the fight and the assault. Thus, the intention to cause harm was present and was premeditated.
To determine the grounds considered during a bail application, the court has relied on State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, where it was held, “the matters to be considered in an application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail”
Keeping in mind the above mentioned grounds and the facts of the case, the court rejected the application.
Click here to read the judgement.
