IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – For serious offences, overcrowding of jails cannot be consideration to release respective accused on bail.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated 4.3.2022, 19.01.2022 and 09.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 3082/2022, 201/2022 and 3078/2022, by which the High Court has directed to release the respective original applicants-accused, namely, Narendra S/o Mehtab, Krishanpal S/o Rakam Singh and Harendra S/o Mehtab on bail in connection with FIR being Case Crime No. 95/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of the IPC, P.S. Falavda, District Meerut, the original informant/complainant has preferred the present appeals.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original informant/complainant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in releasing the respondents-accused on bail and that too in a case where the offences alleged are for the offences under Section 302 etc. of the IPC.

2.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the accused Narendra surrendered only after issuance of process under section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that even the accused Narendra and Harendra both were absconding and vide order dated 10.10.2021 proclamation under section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and only thereafter they surrendered. It is submitted that though the aforesaid facts were pointed out to the High Court, the High Court has not considered the same and has completely ignored the same.

2.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that even the High Court has failed to consider that the recovery of country made pistol has been effected at the instance of the accused Narendra and his brother Harendra.

2.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that all the accused, namely, Narendra, Krishanpal and Harendra have been specifically named in the FIR and also in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that all the accused were part of the unlawful assembly and Narendra and Harendra both are the sons of Mehtab with whom there was a property dispute and their brother Vikas who caused gunshot injury which resulted in death of Sompal, brother of the complainant. It is submitted that the accused Krishanpal was also part of the unlawful assembly and his tractor was used to destroy the crops standing on the field and the same was also mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the complainant.

2.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences committed, which is the relevant consideration while considering the grant of bail.

2.5 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2022, decided on 15.09.2022), by which with respect to the very crime case, the bail in favour of accused Mehtab, father of the accused Narendra and Harendra in the present case, was cancelled by this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail.

3. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. It is submitted that in all these cases the respective accused are on bail since March, 2022/January, 2022/February, 2022 respectively and thereafter there are no allegations of misuse of the liberty shown to them and therefore the impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing them on bail may not be interfered with by this Court now.

3.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise the trial has begun and therefore also the impugn