Murder Accused Summoned U/S 319 CrPC In 'Cursory Manner' Based On Prosecution Witnesses' Statements: Allahabad HC Grants Bail

The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a murder accused who was summoned in a 'cursory manner' under section 319 of CrPC by the trial court based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 

The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the applicant was not even named in the F.I.R. and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the premise of statements of witnesses in the trial court.

Here it may be noted that under Section 319 CrPC, the Court has been given the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence.

In other words, Section 319 CrPC gives power to the Trial Court to proceed against a person who has not been named in the charge sheet, if evidence of the involvement of that person emerges during the trial/inquiry.

In the instant matter, the Court granted her bail primarily in view of the fact that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R.; her name was taken by P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereupon the court below "had not applied its judicial mind and in a cursory manner summoned the applicant to face the trial".

Arguments put forth

Before the Court, her counsel submitted that the prosecution witnesses had taken her name maliciously, with the intention to implicate her falsely and that the court below had erred in summoning her the face the trial.

It was also argued that as per prosecution case, the main role had been assigned to co-accused Gajraj Singh, who has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in 2019. It was further submitted that another co-accused, who was also not named in the F.I.R. and was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in 2020.

Court's observations

At the outset, in order to understand the true spirit of Section 319 CrPC, the Court relied upon the Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, Labhuji Amratji Thakor & others Vs. The State of Gujarat and another, 2018 (0) Supreme (SC) 1147, Brijendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and Periyasami and others vs. S. Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342.

In the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), it was held that only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

In the case of Labhuji (supra) and Brijendra singh (supra) cases, the Apex Court had observed that since a discretionary power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants.

Further, in the case of Periyasami (supra), the Apex Court had observed that mere disclosing the names of a person cannot be said to be strong and cogent evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence under Section 319 of the Code.

Taking into account the abovemnetioned rulings of the Apex Court, the Court found it to be fit case to grant her bail as it remarked thus:

"After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R.; her name was taken by P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereupon learned court below has not applied its judicial mind and in a cursory manner summoned the applicant to face the trial..."

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant, Puspha Devi, booked under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Case Title - Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387

Click Here To Read/Download Order