Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday cancelled the bail granted to a lawyer practicing in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh after noting that he had already been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 506, IPC in an earlier FIR No. 467/1998 and had made endeavours to threaten the witnesses with dire consequences.

"We are unequivocally of the view that it is a fit case where the bail granted to respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled. Respondent No.2 be kept in custody. Respondent No.2 is granted one week’s time to surrender", ordered the Court.

After hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Nitesh Kumar Singh, a bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh said,

"The plea which we seek to examine is whether in the given factual scenario we should take the path, which we would normally be reluctant to choose, of cancelling the bail already granted by the High Court."

As per the impugned order the respondent No.2, a practicing lawyer at Ballia was not named in the FIR originally which was initially instituted against four named accused persons with the specific accusation of "giving a fire arm shot as a consequence of criminal conspiracy."

Alternatively, it was recorded that there were two other un-known persons. In the course of investigation on the basis of CCTV footage, the identity was stated to have been established of those persons which included the respondent lawyer.

On February 7, 2022 the state of UP was asked to file a counter affidavit on the following details:

a) the accused who was granted bail was allegedly threatening the witnesses ;
b) the High Court itself had issued notice on an application for cancellation of bail (Annexure P/8), and
c) that this was the second case against the accused under Section 302, IPC.

In their affidavit, they stated that the respondent-lawyer had already been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 506 IPC.

It was further stated that the incident in question being the second one, there should have been continued custody of the respondent No. 2.

The bench was further told that the conduct of the co-accused Sabal Singh along with other co-accused Harish Paswan and Hari Singh insofar as threatening the witnesses was concerned, it had been verified that there were endeavours of the co-accused to threaten the Pairokar/ witnesses with dire consequences and the application for cancellation of bail was also pending consideration.

The affidavit also dealt with prima facie evidence against the respondent No.2.

This prompted the top court to opine that in the conspectus of the matter, possibly the state prosecutor had never pointed out the detailed facts to the High Court which was the bounden duty of the state, setting forth these aspects of the conduct of respondent No.2.

"Had they been so pointed out, we are sure that the order of the nature passed as the impugned order would not have been passed merely by referring to generalities....", said the Court while cancelling the bail.

Cause Title: Nitesh Kumar Singh vs State of UP & Anr.