Back
N. V. RAMANA, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
Deepak Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Bail No. 11848 of 2021 filed by Respondent No. 2-Accused with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2021 registered at PS Para, Lucknow under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) during pendency of trial. By the said judgment, the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2/Accused on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to certain conditions.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the Appellant/Informant Deepak Yadav lodged an FIR being Crime Case No. 16/2021 on 09.01.2021 at PS Para, Lucknow under Section 307 IPC against Respondent No. 2/Accused Harjeet Yadav, co-accused Sushil Kumar Yadav and two unknown persons. The allegations against the said accused persons were that on the night of 08.01.2021, at around 8.30 P.M. Appellant’s father Mr. Virendera Yadav (deceased) was
Based on the provided list of case laws, here is the analysis of the judicial treatment patterns.
It is important to note as a preliminary observation that the majority of the provided text segments consist of citations *to* specific anchor cases (most notably *Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P.* and *Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.*) rather than records of those cases being overruled or reversed. The provided documentation overwhelmingly treats these cases as authoritative, binding, or persuasive precedents regarding bail jurisprudence.
None of the cases provided in the list are identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as "bad law." The provided text indicates that *Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P.* and *Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.* are actively being followed and cited as current, authoritative law by various High Courts and the Supreme Court.
**Category: Followed/Relied Upon/Reaffirmed**
The vast majority of the entries fall into this category. These cases (or the cited precedents within them) are utilized as the established legal standard for the grant or cancellation of bail.
* **Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2022) 8 SCC 559]:** Repeatedly cited across almost all provided documents as the definitive benchmark for the "broad parameters" to be considered when granting or canceling bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
* **Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]:** Frequently cited alongside *Deepak Yadav* as a foundational precedent for the principles governing bail, specifically regarding the conduct of the accused and judicial discretion.
* **State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977 AIR 2447) / State (Delhi Administration) (1978 AIR 179):** Cited as historical authoritative precedents informing the current interpretation of bail liberalisation and judicial discretion in the cases listed.
* **Supporting Jurisprudence:** Cases like *Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)* and *Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan* are treated as established peer precedents alongside *Deepak Yadav*.
**Category: Distinguished/Discussed**
* **Case Tasso Murte Opo, Son of Late Tasso Grayu vs State of AP represented by the PP of AP - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1018:** A submission is recorded arguing that *Deepak Yadav (supra)* is "not relevant to the present" specific matter. The court acknowledges the citation, but the argument suggests a *distinguishing* of the facts rather than an invalidation of the law.
* **Case Rajeev VS Mahendra - 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 25 & Rajeev vs Mahendra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1101:** These entries note that the law cited in *Deepak Yadav* was invoked by counsel, but the court observes that the judgment was perhaps not applicable in the way the counsel suggested, representing a judicial discussion/interpretation of the precedent rather than a rejection of it.
* **Case Central Bureau of Investigation VS Sekh Jamir Hossain - 2025 5 Supreme 238:** This entry discusses the Home Secretary of West Bengal and post-election violence in 2021. The relationship between this factual situation and the bail jurisprudence established in the other precedents is unclear, as it appears to be a factual account rather than a legal citation of a specific case's treatment.
* **Case Himanshu Sain VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1885:** Reference is made to the State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 2 SCC 382] being a "two Judge Bench" and the court "declining to interfere." It is ambiguous whether the text implies a validation of that specific bail order as a precedent or simply describes the outcome of that particular litigation.
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
