Jayprakash v State of Bihar_reportable

8/13/2019 Jayprakash v State of Bihar_reportable

1/15

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 525-526 OF 2012(Arisin !"# !$ SLP(Cr%.& N!s.'0-'05 !$ 2012&

Jai Prakash Singh Appellant

Vs.

The State of Bihar & Anr. Etc. Respondents

J U D ) M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN* J.

1. Leae granted.

!. These cri"inal appeals hae #een preferred against the

$%dg"ents and orders dated 1..!'11 and !(.1'.!'11 passed #) the

*igh +o%rt of J%dicat%re at Patna in +rl. ,isc. -os.. !/1 and

//(0 of !'112 #) 3hich the *igh +o%rt has enlarged the respondents

Ra$esh 4%"ar Singh 5 Papp% Singh and San$a) 4%"ar Singh 5

,int% Singh on anticipator) #ail %nder Section 0/ of +ode of

+ri"inal Proced%re2 16/ 7hereinafter referred as 8+r.P.+.9:


2/15

/. ;acts and circ%"stances giing rise to these appeals are that ndian

Penal +ode2 1' 7hereinafter referred as 8>.P.+.9:2 alleging therein

that the infor"ant?co"plainant and his elder #rother Shi Prakash

Singh 3ere haing a "edicine shop for the last !@/ )ears. =n

(..!'11 aro%nd 1'.'' p.".2 his #rother closed the shop and

proceeded to3ards his ho%se on his "otorc)cle. *e 3as chased #) the

aforesaid respondents on a "otorc)cle and stopped. The) opened

indiscri"inate firing and th%s2 he died on the spot. >n the ;>R2 it 3as

also alleged that the said respondents had threatened the co"plainant

to kill hi" and his #rother 1'@1( da)s ago as there had #een so"e old

disp%te of acco%nts #et3een the parties.

B. As per the post@"orte" report2 the deceased receied ( #%llet

in$%ries on his person and he died #eca%se of the sa"e. The said

respondents had applied for anticipator) #ail2 ho3eer2 their

applications stood re$ected #) the learned Sessions J%dge ide order

dated 11..!'11 o#sering that in the inestigation2 a strong "otie

had #een fo%nd against the said respondents and there 3ere certain

!


3/15

affidaits of e)e@3itnesses to the effect that the said respondents 3ere

the assailants.

+. Aggrieed2 the said respondents filed ,iscellaneo%s +ri"inal

Petitions for grant of anticipator) #ail %nder Section 0/ +r.P.+.

#efore the Patna *igh +o%rt. The said applications hae #een allo3ed

passing the i"p%gned orders granting the" anticipator) #ail on the

gro%nds that the ;>R itself "ade it eident that there 3as so"e

preio%s disp%te #et3een the parties 3hich led to a %arrel and the

acc%sed had fair antecedents.

*ence2 these appeals.

0. Shri i$endra 4%"ar Pande)2 learned co%nsel appearing for

the appellant2 has s%#"itted that the *igh +o%rt co""itted grae error

3hile granting anticipator) #ail to the said respondents 3itho%t

considering the grait) of the offence and the "anner in 3hich the

offence had #een co""itted and 3itho%t realising that the ;>R had

#een lodged pro"ptl) 3ithin a period of t3o ho%rs of the incident and

#oth the said acc%sed persons had #een na"ed therein. Th%s2 the

i"p%gned $%dg"ents and orders are lia#le to #e set aside.

(. =n the contrar)2 ,s. 4aita Jha and ,s. Prerna Singh2

learned co%nsel appearing for the said respondents and the State of

/


4/15

Bihar2 hae opposed the appeals contending that the *igh +o%rt has

i"posed er) serio%s conditions 3hile granting the anticipator) #ail.

The order does not re%ire an) interference at this stage. The appeals

hae no "erit and are lia#le to #e dis"issed.

. Ce hae considered the rial s%#"issions "ade #) the learned

co%nsel appearing for the parties and per%sed the record.

6. The proisions of Section 0/ +r.P.+. la) do3n g%idelines for

considering the anticipator) #ail application2 3hich read as %nderR had #een lodged pro"ptl) 3ithin a period

of t3o ho%rs fro" the ti"e of incident at "idnight. Pro"ptness in

filing the ;>R gies certain ass%rance of eracit) of the ersion gien

#) the infor"ant?co"plainant.

1!. The ;>R in cri"inal case is a ital and al%a#le piece of

eidence tho%gh "a) not #e s%#stantie piece of eidence. The o#$ect

of insisting %pon pro"pt lodging of the ;>R in respect of the

co""ission of an offence is to o#tain earl) infor"ation regarding the

circ%"stances in 3hich the cri"e 3as co""itted2 the na"es of act%al

c%lprits and the part pla)ed #) the" as 3ell as the na"es of e)e@

3itnesses present at the scene of occ%rrence. >f there is a dela) in

lodging the ;>R2 it looses the adantage of spontaneit)2 danger creeps

in of the introd%ction of colo%red ersion2 eIaggerated acco%nt or

concocted stor) as a res%lt of large n%"#er of

cons%ltations?deli#erations. Mndo%#tedl)2 the pro"ptness in lodging

the ;>R is an ass%rance regarding tr%th of the infor"ant9s ersion. A

pro"ptl) lodged ;>R reflects the first hand acco%nt of 3hat has

act%all) happened2 and 3ho 3as responsi#le for the offence in

6


8/15

%estion. 7Vide< T+"%i, ,%i . T+/ S#,#/ !$ T,i% N,"*A>R 16/

S+ ('1 S#,#/ !$ P"n,3 . S"r, R,*A>R 1( S+ !01/ )iris+

4,, Ors. . S#,#/ !$ M.P.* 71: S++ 1 and T,ir

S,s"in S+/i+ . S#,#/ !$ )",r,# Anr.*A>R !'1! S+ /6:.

1/. There is no s%#stantial difference #et3een Sections 0/ and

0/ +r.P.+. so far as appreciation of the case as to 3hether or not a

#ail is to #e granted2 is concerned. *o3eer2 neither anticipator) #ail

nor reg%lar #ail can #e granted as a "atter of r%le. The anticipator)

#ail #eing an eItraordinar) priilege sho%ld #e granted onl) in

eIceptional cases. The $%dicial discretion conferred %pon the co%rt has

to #e properl) eIercised after proper application of "ind to decide

3hether it is a fit case for grant of anticipator) #ail.

10. >n S#,#/ !$ M.P. Anr. . R, is+n, B,%!#+i, Anr.2

A>R 1( S+ 112 this +o%rt considered the nat%re of the right of

anticipator) #ail and o#sered as %nderR !'11 S+ /1!2

and s%#"itted that %nless the c%stodial interrogation is

3arranted in the facts and circ%"stances of the case2 not

granting anticipator) #ail a"o%nts to denial of the rights

conferred %pon a citiFen?person %nder Article !1 of the

+onstit%tion. Ce are afraid the la3 as referred to hereina#oe

does not s%pport the case as canassed #) learned co%nsel for

the acc%sed@respondents. ,ore so2 the +onstit%tion Bench of


10/15

this +o%rt in ,r#,r Sin+ . S#,#/ !$ P"n,3*710: / S++

(2 3hile s%""ing %p the la3 in para /2 inter&alia, held as

%nder

Jayprakash v State of Bihar_reportable

Documents

Transcript of Jayprakash v State of Bihar_reportable