Mukesh Chandra Sharma vs. State Of U. P

ITEM NO.13 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6504/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2021 in CRMBA No. 16690/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

MUKESH CHANDRA SHARMA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

( IA No. 103536/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 103530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 103532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 21-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinod Prasad, Sr. Adv Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, AOR Ms. Jyoti Tiwary, Adv
• For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR

Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

This special leave petition has been filed by the father of the deceased challenging the order passed by the High Court on 03.08.2021. The High Court, by the impugned order, granted bail to Respondent No.2 who is accused of committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The postmortem report confirmed that the deceased died due to a firearm injury on the left side of his chest. It has been alleged by the petitioner that Respondent No.2 has murdered his son Harsh @ Molu using a revolver, inside the house of Respondent No.2. The said weapon was recovered during the course of investigation.

Respondent No.2 contended before the High Court, that he was a close friend of the deceased and the firearm injury caused to the deceased was an accident. It was further contended by Respondent No.2 before the High Court that Respondent No.2 is a trained shooter.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that there is sufficient material to show the complicity of Respondent No.2 and the evidence placed on record would show that prima facie, the death of the complainant's son is not the result of an accident. It was further argued that the father of Respondent No.2, subsequent to being released on bail, started threatening the petitioner and his family members. An FIR was registered under sections 504 and 506 IPC against the father of the Respondent for such acts.

Learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the petitioner and argued that the High

2

Court while grating bail, has neither considered the facts of the case nor has given any reasons. Learned counsel for the State, submitted that a contradictory stand has been taken by Respondent No.2 regarding the weapon used in committing the offence. In the application filed for grant of bail before the High Court, Respondent No.2 stated that the weapon belonged to the deceased went off by an accident causing the death of the deceased. Whereas, in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, a different stand has been taken.

Learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, stated that the respondent has been at liberty for the past 8 months and, he had no role in either tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses. Respondent No.2 has completed his 10+2 course and is making an effort to pursue his studies. It is further submitted by Respondent No.2 that a case for cancellation of bail has not been made out.

We are informed that the charge sheet has been filed on 20.08.2020. Pursuant to the framing of charges, the trial has commenced and the petitioner was examined as PW-1. The sister of the deceased is yet to be examined. Taking into account the fact that the trial has commenced, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court

3

granting bail to Respondent No.2. However, it is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State, that the father of Respondent No.2 has been attempting to threaten the petitioner and his family members. We are also informed that a criminal case has been registered against him for such acts. To ensure that there is no tampering of evidence or threatening of witnesses, we direct Respondent No.2 and his father to stay away from Ghaziabad District till the material witnesses are examined. Respondent No.2 and his father are directed to furnish particulars of the place of stay to the trial Court.

Any attempt made by either Respondent No.2 or his father to either threaten witnesses or tamper with the evidence shall be brought to the notice of this Court, the liberty of which is given to both the petitioner as well as the State.

Special leave petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Court Master Court Master

(Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash)

4