Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8469 of 2014)

Neeru Yadav

…

Appellant

Versus

State of U.P and another

…

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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 2^nd respondent to bail in Crime No. 237 of 2013 instituted

Page 2

JUDGMENT

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 2^nd 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:-

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

“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 2^nd 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

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

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 a