High CourtDivision Bench2008-02-27Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Th. DGC(CRL.) & ANR.

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008

Neutral Citation:[2008] 3 SCR 545

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan
R.V. Raveendran
D.K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2008-02-27
Court Decision / Holding: The Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli, is directed to complete the trial within three months. If, for any reason other than the non-cooperation of the accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for bail, which shall be considered on merits and appropriate order passed irrespective of observations in the impugned High Court order.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Akhilesh Kumar Singh

Respondents

State of Uttar Pradesh through Director General of Criminal Investigation (DGC(CRL.)) and Another
State of Uttar Pradesh through DGC(CRL.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ram Jethmalani
• Lata Krishnamurthy
• S. Balaji
• Sudhanshu Nath Singh
• Madhusmita Bora
• S.R. Sharma
• Saurabh

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. R.G. Padia
• Ranjit Kumar
• Irshad Ahmad
• R.K.S. Yadav
• Sushil Mishra
• Lalit Srivastava
• K. K. Mohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Akhilesh Kumar Singh, accused in Crime No. 311/2002 for offences under Sections 302 and 395 read with Section 120-B IPC, pending trial, challenged the Allahabad High Court's cancellation of bail after a second bail was granted by the Sessions Court. The appellant's first bail application was rejected on 18.10.2002; a subsequent bail was granted on 7.11.2002. The High Court later set aside that bail. The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail and whether delay in trial could justify continued detention. The proceedings highlight a pattern of politically influenced cases against the appellant, including allegations of criminal activity and attempted harm to prosecution witnesses. The appellant and his counsel contended that many cases were initiated for political reasons and that several cases against the second respondent also exist; the second bail could not be justified under settled principles of judicial propriety because new grounds could have been raised earlier. The Court observed repeated adjournments with the expectation that key witnesses could be examined, and the trial was continuing. The Bench directed the trial judge to complete the trial within three months, and if not, the appellant would be free to apply for bail, which must be considered on merits, notwithstanding observations in the impugned High Court order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 395 read with Section 120-B IPCSection 120-B IPCSection 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of judicial propriety

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the numerous cases against him appear to be a result of political rivalry, with several cases closed as baseless by the investigating agency. He argued that the second bail order, granted after the first bail had been rightly rejected, should be examined in light of settled principles of judicial propriety—grounds not availed in the first application could have been raised then. Citing delay in trial and the likelihood that crucial witnesses may have already been examined, the defence urged that bail should not be denied on this ground alone and that the Sessions Court should decide on merits if delays persisted, especially since the prosecution bears responsibility for timely completion of the trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the High Court’s cancellation of bail, arguing that the first bail application was rightly rejected and new grounds for bail were not sufficiently justified. They noted a pattern of pending criminal cases and potential risks to witnesses, including attacks on witnesses and involvement in broader criminal activity. They contended that the trial had not concluded, and the delay had not been attributable solely to the accused. The High Court’s order was based on settled principles of judicial propriety and the need to prevent abuse of the bail process where multiple cases and ongoing investigations exist. They urged the Supreme Court to respect the High Court’s assessment and to ensure that bail is granted only where appropriate and on merits upon a potential delay in the trial.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Th. DGC(CRL.) & ANR. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 545 A _.. -.._ B ## AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH _v._ STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008) ## FEBRUARY 27, 2008 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN C.J., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) . .,. - - _Bail Sessions case pending trial Rejection of first_ - - _bail application Grant of second bail application Set aside_ c _by High Court_ - _Challenge to_ - _Held: In case of delay in trial of the case, accused would be at liberty to file bail application and Sessions Court would consider the same on merits._ ..... ~ A case was registered against the appellant for the offences u/ss 302, 395 r/w s. 120-8 IPC and are pending trial. Appellant's first bail application was rejected and the second bail application was allowed. In the criminal miscellaneous case, High Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail. Hence the present appeal. D E ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court ... • . "' HELD: When the matter was pending before this Court, the case was adjourned repeatedly with the F expectation that the important witnesses would be examined by the prosecution and the trial would be completed at an early date. The trial is being continued and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge G is directed to complete the same within three months and, if for the reason, except the non-cooperation of the accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court 545 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. 546 .. _,... A for bail and the Sessions Court would consider the same on merits. (Para 6) [547-F, G; 548-A] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008. B From the final Judgment and order dated 20/12/2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2198/2002. T • Ram Jethmalani, Lataa Krishnamurthy, S. Balaji, c[Sudhanshu ][Nath ][Singh, ][Madhusmita ][Bora, ][S.R. ][Sharma ][and ] Saurabh for the Appellant. Dr. R.G. Padia, Ranjit Kumar, lrshadAhmad, R.K.S. Yadav, Sushi I Mishra, Lal it Srivastava and K. K. Mohan for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. (1) Leave granted. (2) The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 311/2002 E[registered for ][the ][offences under Sections ][302 ][and ][395 ][read ] with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant moved bail application before the Sessions Court and the same was rejected on 18.10.2002. Thereafter, the appellant moved another bail application on 29.10.2002 and the same was F[allowed ][on ][7.11.2002. Aggrieved ][by ][the ][same, ][the ][second ] respondent herein filed a criminal miscellaneous case before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail to the appellant. The main reason given by G[the ][learned ][Single Judge of ][the ][High ][Court ][in ][cancelling ][the ][bail ] granted to the appellant is that the first bail application was rejected on valid grounds and just 19 days after the rejection of the first bail application, the appellant herein had no ground to urge for bail as there was no change in circumstances. It was H[also ][pointed ][out ][that ][whatever grounds ][urged ][in ][the ][second ][bail ] ~ ... _JI.._ .. _J'_ 547 AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH _v._ STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.) ..; ~ .... .. -'< • -'<, application could have been stated in the first bail application A and the reasons given for grant of bail by the Sessions Judge in the second bail application were. in utter violation of the settled principles of judicial propriety. (3) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the B parties. (4) A sessions case is pefiding trial against the appellant. There was an allegation that the appellant herein attempted to cause death of one person who was arrayed as a prosecution witness and a case was registered against the appellant. It is c also pointed out that the appellant herein made an attempt on the life of brother of the second respondent herein and for that also a case had been registered against the appellant under Section 307 IPC. It is further pointed out that a series of crimes have been registered against the appellant. D (5) Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, pointed out that all these cases have been registered on account of political rivalry and many of such cases were closed by the investigating agency when they were found baseless. The list of cases has been furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also pointed out that even against the second respondent several cases are pending and he had no right to move for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant. E F (6) When the matter was pending before us, we repeatedly adjourned the case with the expectation that the important witnesses would be examined by the prosecution and the trial . would be completed at an early date. The trial is being continued G and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli is directed to complete the same within a period of three months and, if for any reason, except the non-cooperation of . the accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. - A appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for bail and, without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order, the same would be considered by the Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate order shall be passed. B (7) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.