In the case of the murder of the Ram Murti Sharma’s son, a legal battle has ensued between the Ram Murti Sharma and the State of UP. The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Respondent No. 2 has been met with challenge by the Appellant. This follows the dismissal of the bail application by the Sessions Judge with detailed reasons provided. The case involves heinous allegations and raises crucial questions regarding the grant of bail. Stay tuned for more updates on this ongoing legal saga.
Facts
- FIR No.733 of 2022 was registered based on a complaint by the appellant alleging murder of his son.
- Respondent No.2 filed a bail application before the High Court, which was allowed on 03.08.2023.
- The bail application was initially dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 23.09.2022 with detailed reasons provided.
- Respondent No.2 was taken into custody on 15.06.2022.
- The impugned order before this Court is the one dismissing the bail application of Respondent No.2.
Also Read: The State of Karnataka v. Naresh Kumar: Quashing of FIR
Arguments
- The bail application was allowed by the High Court after briefly considering the stand of the parties.
- The State has not challenged the High Court’s order granting bail.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court failed to consider relevant facts pointing to the involvement of the petitioner in the crime.
- The State supported the appellant’s counsel in this argument.
- The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, suggesting lack of direct evidence against the petitioner.
- The respondent had already been incarcerated for approximately one year and two months.
- This timeframe illustrates the significant amount of time the respondent has already spent in prison.
- This imprisonment duration could factor into considerations for any additional penalties or consequences imposed.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Retroactive Legislation in FSS Act Case
Analysis
- High Court directed release of the respondent based on relevant materials and to avoid prejudicing the case of either side.
- Sessions Judge discussed collected material in detail while rejecting bail for the respondent.
- No negative conduct was reported for the respondent after being granted bail.
- Respondent was not initially named in the FIR but evidence later implicated him in the crime.
- The granting of bail to the respondent follows the law, requiring brief reasons for the decision.
- The case involves a heinous crime of murder against the appellant-complainant’s son.
- The High Court’s decision on bail was based primarily on the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent.
- The bail release directed by the High Court was not legally sustainable as per the opinion of the judges.
Also Read: Legal Status of Ghee under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Market Act
Decision
- Respondent no.2 is granted three weeks’ time to surrender.
- Respondent no.2 is not debarred from filing a fresh bail application at any subsequent stage, to be considered on its own merits.
- The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
- The appeal is allowed based on the reasons mentioned.
- The order passed by the High Court in the bail application directing respondent no.2 to be released on bail is challenged by the complainant.
- The above order shall not prejudice the respondent no.2 in any subsequent proceedings relating to the crime.
Case Title: RAM MURTI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P. (2024 INSC 250)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001797-001797 / 2024
