1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3520 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Ajit Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3573 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3527 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
2
Nitin Chauhan & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3521 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Gopal Dutt Bhatt & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3529 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Rajesh Bisht & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3522 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat & Anr. ...Respondents
3
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO............. OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3523 of 2010)
Ravindra Pal Singh ... Appellant
VERSUS
Niraj Yadav & Anr. ...Respondents
J U D G E M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In all the appeals, the original complainant has
challenged the separate orders passed by the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Application
No.70 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.3520 of 2010, Bail
Application No.73 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.3573 of 2010
Bail Application No.75 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.)No.3527 of
2010, Bail Application No. 46 of 2010 in
SLP(Crl)No.3521 of 2010, Bail Application No. 72 of
2010 in SLP(Crl)No.3529 of 2010, Bail Application No.
45 of 2010 in SLP(Crl)No.3522 of 2010, Bail
4
Application No. 74 of 2010 in SLP(Crl)No.3523 of 2010
granted bail to the respondents herein.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased Ranbir
Singh was a MBA student. On 2nd of July, 2009, he
had gone to Dehradun in search of a job. On 3rd of
July, 2009, he was illegally picked up by the
Dehradun Police. At around 3.30 on the same day, he
was killed in cold blood by the accused police officials.
According to the post mortem report, the police
officials fired a total of 29 bullets at the deceased, 17
of these bullets hit the deceased at a very close range
and 9 bullets were fired from a maximum distance of 3
feet.
4. On receiving information from some media persons
that his son had been shot down by the police at
Dehradun, the complainant reached Dehradun and
tried to contact the police officials. He was, however,
threatened by one of the police officer that if he tries to
5
interfere in the matter, he would also be eliminated
like his son.
5. In the appeal, the appellant has given details of the
prosecution version which are not necessary for us to
recapitulate at this stage. After performing the last
rites of his son, the complainant went back to
Dehradun and filed a case against the police personnel
which was recorded as FIR No.101/2009 dated
6.7.2009 under Section 120B, 364, 302, 201 IPC. On
30th July, 2009, for obvious reasons, the investigation
of the case was handed over to the CBI, SCB,
Lucknow.
6. The first respondent herein along with other 4 accused
police officers filed bail application No.991/2009 in the
Court of Sessions Judge, 4th FTC Dehradun for bail.
7. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10.12.2009
rejected the bail application. The respondent herein
6
thereafter moved the application for bail in the High
Court. A vacation Judge of the High Court by order
dated 20th January, 2001 granted bail to the accused.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the complainant,
father of the deceased, has moved the petitions by
special leave.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Mr.Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General
submitted that the High Court committed an error in
granting bail without any justification. Learned
counsel appearing for the appellant emphasised the
seriousness of the offences committed. Learned
counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that
the High Court has been overly influenced by the fact
that the CBI was not represented at the time when the
bail application came up for hearing. According to the
complainant, presence or absence of the counsel for
the CBI was wholly irrelevant for examining the merits
of the application for bail. He submitted that all the
7
accused being police officials, the complainant and
other witnesses are always under constant threat.
There is prima facie involvement of all the accused in a
case of false encounter. According to the prosecution,
not only an innocent person has been eliminated but
efforts have been made by all concerned to cover up
the crime. The High Court merely noticed the
submissions made by the counsel for the accused and
arbitrarily granted bail. Mr.Sushil Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted
that there is no danger to either the complainant or
any of the witnesses, as all the police officials have
now been posted out of the district. Learned counsel
further submitted that a perusal of the orders passed
in the case of some of the accused would show that
the bail applications were contested and vehemently
opposed by the CBI.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel. We are of the considered opinion that
8
the allegations made against the respondents cannot
be brushed aside at this stage. The CBI after
investigation of the matter has already submitted the
charge sheet. According to the prosecution all the
accused were involved in the fake encounter in which
an innocent young man lost his life. The High Court
also ought to have taken into consideration the serious
nature of the allegations, the possibilities of undue
influence being exerted on the witnesses for the
prosecution at the instance of the police officials. In
our opinion, the High Court committed serious error in
granting bail to the respondents.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these
cases, we allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned orders of the High Court.
……………………………..J.
[B.Sudershan Reddy]
9
……………………………..J.
[Surinder Singh Nijjar]
New Delhi;
March 17, 2011