Case Title: Ramayan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023
Dated On: 19th April, 2024
Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case revolves around one Ramayan Singh who is the appellant and also the original complainant. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him.
Upon stealing the deceased’s gold chain and mobile phones from both the driver and the deceased, the accused fled the scene of the incident. After being taken to the Primary Health Centre in Bankati, the deceased was taken to the District Hospital in Basti and then to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow, where he passed away on February 10, 2022, as a result of his severe injuries.
The deceased person had injuries to his or her head, hand, and knee, according to an inquest report that was written on the same day, February 10, 2022. (ii) A post-mortem was performed, and the results showed that the deceased had four serious antemortem head injuries. Crucially, ante mortem head injuries were found to be the cause of death, leaving the patient in a coma.
The Original Complainant, who filed the current appeals, is the appellant in this case. In it, he challenges the validity of the order(s) that the High Court issued, expanding (i) Respondent No. 2 and (ii) placing Punit Pal on bail in connection with the FIR.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
The appellant contended, rather vehemently, The High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal given the following facts: (i) accusations had been made against the accused individual(s); (ii) Respondent No. 2 had been found to be the owner of the weapon used in the assault of the deceased; and (iii) the Trial Court had issued well-reasoned orders rejecting bail requests for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal.
It was also further alleged that there is a genuine and likely risk to the accused person(s)’s capacity to influence witnesses given the tremendous influence they have in the area—including Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, among others—that all of the businesses close to the scene of the incident stayed closed for ten (10) days following the incident.
The counsel on behalf of the appellants alleged that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.
that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
In a vehement argument, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal made the following claims in court: That while Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal have been complying with the trial, the Appellant has put the proceedings before the Trial Court on hold.
That the accusation made against Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 about the extension of threats to the appellant was completely false and, in reality, was part of a deliberate attempt to discredit Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2.
It was further alleged that there was no formal agreement regarding the purported deal between the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Sharma and his wife Mrs. Ashu, even though the second respondent (Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal) claimed to have given the appellant Rs. 1 lakh in cash. Remarkably, the complainants in this instance were not Mr. Pankaj Sharma or Mrs. Ashu, from whose bank account the money was purportedly moved. Despite these contentions, the second respondent did not appear to contest the matter.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- S.147 OF IPC- Punishment for rioting. If someone is found guilty of rioting, they could face up to two years in prison of any kind, a fine, or both.
- S.148 OF IPC- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon. Anyone found guilty of rioting, carrying a lethal weapon, or using anything else that could be used as a weapon of offence and result in death can be penalised with a fine, three years’ worth of jail, or both.
- S.120B OF IPC- Punishment of criminal conspiracy. If this Code does not specifically address the punishment of a criminal conspiracy, then anyone found guilty of conspiring to commit an offence that carries a sentence of death, 2[life imprisonment], or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more will be punished as though they had assisted in the commission of the offence.
- S. 323 OF IPC- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Anyone who intentionally causes harm, with the exception of situations covered by section 334, faces a period of imprisonment of any kind up to a year, a fine up to a thousand rupees, or both.
- S.504 OF IPC- PINISHMENT FOR INSULTING SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY. Anybody who willfully offends someone and provokes them in the hope that the person will break the peace or commit another crime faces a maximum two-year sentence in either type of jail, a fine, or both.
COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court meticulously solved the issue at hand by observing that the accused person was involved in a widespread daylight murder that resulted in the closure of a market for a prolonged period of ten (10) days due to their overwhelming influence in the area. As a result, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought not to have granted Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceedings arising from the FIR on account of (i) the seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s); and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large.
The court held that as a result, the contested orders, dated 24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 respectively, which granted accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal bail, cannot be upheld in the previously described circumstances and are now set aside.
The court, In the above terms, accepted the appeals. The accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal’s bail bond(s) were revoked. The person or people mentioned above were placed under custody right away. To facilitate further action and required compliance, a copy of this judgement was sent to the Trial Court in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The Trial Court was then further instructed to wrap up the case as soon as possible, ideally within a year of receiving a copy of this judgement.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
