Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday cancelled the bail of an accused while holding that he played a serious role in the crime of catching hold of the deceased and making it possible for his co-accused to inflict injuries on the deceased.

With this view, court held the high court's order releasing one Gulveer on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC to be unsustainable.

The complainant, one Nitu Kumar had approached the Top Court challenging the grant of bail to Gulveer.

The statement of eye­witness Narender was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein a specific role was attributed to Gulveer that he caught hold of the deceased and the co­-accused Shekhar caused the injury on the neck of the deceased.

After the chargesheet was filed, Gulveer approached Sessions court for bail. Since the same was denied, he approached the High Court.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari found that before the High Court, it was mainly contended on behalf of Gulveer that the only role attributed to him was catching hold of the deceased and thus a case for granting bail was made out.

The division bench noted that nothing had been discussed by the high court on the role attributed to Gulveer and his overt act in commission of the offence.

"The High Court has not appreciated that there is an eye witness, who has categorically stated that respondent no. 1 caught hold of
the deceased. The High Court ought to have appreciated that if respondent no. 1 would not have caught hold of the deceased it would not have been possible for the co-accused Shekhar to cause injuries on the deceased. Therefore, the High Court ought to have appreciated that the role attributed to respondent no. 1 can be said to be very serious like co-accused Shekhar", the top court held while quashing the bail order.

Case Title: Nitu Kumar vs. Gulveer & Anr.