Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Neeru Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P and another – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8469 of 2014)
Decided On : 16-12-2014
(2002) 3 SCC 598; (2001) 4 SCC 280; (2004) 7 SCC 525 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Misconduct of accused subsequent to grant of bail or supervening circumstances, and – Grant of bail unjustifiably and illegally and therefore being perverse – Two different things – Cancellation in former event is normal – Normally Supreme Court does not interfere with grant or not of bail – But when grant of bail is perverse, it has to be interfered. (Para 13)
(2010) 14 SCC 496 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Respondent no. 2 firing in daylight and killing the deceased – Charged with offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC – He is a history-sheeter – Many criminal cases including offences u/s 302 pending against him – His case being different from his co-accused who was granted bail – No question of parity – High Court exposes non-application of mind – Liable to be set aside and bail annulled. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Respondent no. 2 and others were charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Bail application of respondent no. 2 was rejected by the Additional District & Sessions Judge.
The High Court however granted him bail on ground of parity as one of the co-accused was enlarged on bail.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned grant of bail has to be annulled being perverse and a result of non-application of mind.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasizes that while granting bail, it is essential to consider the likelihood of the offense being repeated and the potential for justice to be thwarted by the grant of bail (!) .
The distinction between misconduct of the accused after bail has been granted and supervening circumstances is critical; the former usually warrants cancellation, whereas the latter may justify interference only if the bail order is perverse or shows non-application of mind (!) .
The order granting bail must be based on a proper assessment of all relevant factors, including the nature of the offense, the severity of punishment, the evidence, and the possibility of tampering or intimidation of witnesses (!) - (!) .
The criminal history and antecedents of the accused are significant considerations. A person with a criminal record, especially involving heinous crimes, and who is a history-sheeter, generally does not deserve bail, particularly when the case involves serious charges such as firing in broad daylight resulting in death and injuries (!) (!) - (!) .
The principle of parity can be a factor in bail decisions; however, it is not an absolute rule and must be weighed against other relevant considerations, including the role of the accused and their criminal background (!) (!) .
The order of the High Court granting bail was found to be perverse and based on non-application of mind, especially given the accused’s criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offense, leading to the conclusion that such an order warrants setting aside (!) (!) .
The importance of individual liberty is acknowledged; however, it is not absolute and can be lawfully restricted when an individual poses a danger to society or has a history of serious criminal conduct (!) (!) .
The court underscores that the trial process remains unaffected by the cancellation of bail, and the accused must surrender to custody if directed, with the trial proceeding based on the evidence on record (!) .
Overall, the court highlights the necessity of careful, reasoned consideration of all relevant factors before granting or canceling bail, and it emphasizes that an order based on incomplete or irrelevant considerations is liable to be annulled (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal guidance.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal substantiality and defensibility of the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31078 of 2014 whereby the learned Judge, in exercise of power under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) had admitted the 2nd respondent to bail in Crime No. 237 of 2013 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. As the impugned order would reveal, it was contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that similarly placed co-accused, Ashok, had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court by order dated 23.9.2013 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21876 of 2013 and role of the accused-respondent No.2 was identical to that of Ashok Kumar and he should be released on bail. Thus the foundation of the prayer for grant of bail was on the bedrock of parity. The said prayer for grant of bail was opposed with vehemence by the learned A.G.A. contending, inter alia, that the accused had criminal antecedents and the role attributed to him was different. The same was controverted by the accused asserting that the said aspect had been explained in the affidavit attached to the bail application.
4. As the factual narration would further undrape, the learned Single Judge keeping in view the aforesaid aspects passed the following order:-
“Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of party.
In view of the above, let the applicant, Mitthan Yadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 237 of 2013, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kavinagar, district-Ghaziabad with the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.
(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.”
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the wife of the deceased has preferred this appeal for setting aside the order.
6. At this juncture, it is apt to note that 2nd respondent had moved an application for bail before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who took note of the factual matrix, which is as follows:-
“As per the prosecution story complainant Sakek Chand has lodged the report at PS Kavi Nagar that accused Mitthan, Manoj, lala Kapil and Budhu @ Budhpal were keeping enmity with the brother of the complainant Salekh Chand on their consuming wine in front of the house of complainant and due to this fear brother the complainant had keep a private gunner. On 25.2.13 at about 11.00 a.m. complainant and his brother Yashvir, Munir and Deepak were sitting in the house and suddenly above all accused carrying weapon in their hands entered into the house of the complainant and began hectic firing. Brother of the complainant received several bullet injuries. Complainant ran raising noise and also caught him and cause grievous injuries on his head, due to which he fell down. Hearing the voice of firing gunner also came and his rifle was snatched him them and also gave beatings to him and injured him. When people of the village gathered accused fled away giving threatening. People of the village admitted brother of the complainant in hospital where doctor declared him dead.”
Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, after taking note of the aforesaid allegations, declined to grant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
