Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 486

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Deepak Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2022, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9655 of 2021
Decided On : 20-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Awanish Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinod Diwakar,AAG Mr. Divyanshu Sahay,Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma,Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Akbar Ali,Adv. Mr. Man Mohan Sharma,Adv. Mr. Harendra Kumar Sharma,Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined.
(2) Cancellation of bail – Bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner – Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process – Jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised cautiously on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to facts and circumstances of each case – For grant or denial of bail, nature of crime has huge relevancy – Importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined – There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where accused is charged with a serious offence – Sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by decision maker after considering all relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations – There is certainly no strait-jacket formula which exists for courts to assess an application for grant or rejection of bail but determination of whether a case is fit for grant of bail involves balancing of numerous factors, among which nature of offence, severity of punishment and a prima facie view of involvement of accused are important – Apex Court does not, normally interfere with order passed by High Court granting or rejecting bail to accused – However, it is equally incumbent upon High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with basic principles laid down in a catena of judgments by Apex Court. (Paras 18, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 37)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Murder charge – Bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial – Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail which was already granted – Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances – Apex Court has inherent powers and discretion to cancel bail of an accused even in absence of supervening circumstances – Grant of bail to Respondent No.2/Accused only on the basis of parity shows that impugned order passed by High Court suffers from vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable – High Court has not taken into consideration criminal history of Respondent No.2/Accused, nature of crime, material evidences available, involvement of Respondent No.2/Accused in the crime and recovery of weapon from his possession – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and bail cancelled – This Order shall not preclude Respondent No. 2/Accused from applying afresh for bail at a later stage if new circumstances are brought to light. (Paras 30, 31, 39, 40 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Bail filed by Respondent No.2 - Accused with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime registered under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 during pendency of trial. By said judgment, High Court granted bail to Respondent No.2/Accused on furnishing a personal bond.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside. The bail bonds of Respondent No.2/Accused stand cancelled and he is hereby directed to surrender within one week from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the concerned police authorities shall take him into custody.
Result : Appeal allowed.

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 on way to his home from the lawn located near Jaipuria School and at the same time, the accused persons took position on Kulhad Katta Bridge and fired at him with the common intention to kill the deceased. The bullet shot hit his right cheek and made its exit through the other side leaving him severely injured. In view of his serious condition, the people present on the spot informed the local police station and admitted him at the Trauma Centre, Medical College, Lucknow. The Appellant/Informant, on receiving the information about his injured father rushed to the Trauma Centre with his mother Smt. Sunita Yadav and elder sister Ms. Jyoti Yadav. The Appellant’s mother asked her husband about the incident to which he replied that he was shot by Respondent No. 2/Accused Harjeet Yadav and one, Sushil Yadav and that they were accompanied by two other persons as well. The statement given by the deceased was noted down by Sri. Mahesh Kumar Chaurasia, DSP/ACP Chowk, Lucknow and Sri. Ashok Kumar Singh, SI/First Investigating Officer.

4. Respondent No. 2/Accused was arrested by the police on 13.01.2021 and one country made pistol with two live cartages were recovered from him. The Appellant/Informant’s father passed away on 14.01.2021 on account of which the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. The co-accused, Sushil Kumar Yadav surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 16.01.2021.

5. After completion of investigation and upon finding sufficient evidence, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court on 06.04.2021 against Respondent No. 2/Accused and co-accused Sushil Kumar Yadav under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. Furthermore, investigation against two unknown accused persons is pending.

6. Respondent No. 2/Accused filed Bail Application No. 3340/2021 before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow and the same was rejected vide order dated 28.06.2021 on the ground that he has been named on the basis of the information provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been clarified after the perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was shot by Respondent No. 2/Accused himself.

7. Respondent No. 2/Accused then moved the High Court for grant of regular bail vide Bail No. 11848/2021 wherein Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Accused contended that the co-accused, Sushil Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by the High Court on 18.10.2021 in Bail No. 8501 of 2021 and that the case of the Respondent No. 2 stands on identical footing making him entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The said bail application was allowed vide impugned judgment/order dated 22.10.2021. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: