Supreme Court of India
YASHPAL SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR on 15 September 2022
2022 INSC 966[2022] 4 S.C.R. 835
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 835
YASHPAL SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Bail – Cancellation of – Allegedly a land dispute was goingon between respondent no.2-original accused and originalinformant-Complainant – It was also alleged that accused personshad attacked informant and other persons – In the said incidentbrother of informant died on the spot and others were seriouslyinjured – FIR was registered – Respondent no.2 was arrested – Bailof respondent no.2 was rejected by the trial Court – High Courtreleased respondent no. 2 on bail – Complainant approachedSupreme Court and challenged the validity of grant of bail – Held:That on the day of incident, a tractor was driven over standingcrops on the disputed land in question by the accused persons withintention to take over possession and all the accused persons werearmed – Informant and others gathered at the spot and accusedpersons attacked them and in the said incident brother of informantdied on the spot and others were seriously injured – The said aspectwas not considered by the High Court – No reasons were given bythe High Court while granting bail – Submission of the accusedthat there was dark night, therefore, it was not possible to identifythe accused was accepted by the High Court without giving anyreason – However, the accused persons were known to the informantas there was an previous enimty – Also, informant had specificallynamed accused persons in FIR – Nature and seriousness ofallegations and gravity of offences also not considered by the HighCourt – Order and judgment of bail of the High Court unsustainableand set aside – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 147, 148, 149, 324, 427,441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Page 1 of 6
HELD: 1. This Court have gone through the allegationsmade in the FIR. The land dispute between respondent No. 2-
835
A
B
C
D
E
FG
H
Aoriginal accused and informant-complainant side is the motive. Itis alleged in the FIR that on the earlier night they ran over thetractor on the standing crop and the accused persons tried totake over the possession. That thereafter when the informantand others gathered at the spot the accused persons named inthe FIR attacked them and in the said incident brother of theBinformant died and other persons were seriously injured. Theaforesaid aspect has not at all been considered by the High Courtwhile releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. No reason whatsoeverhas been given by the High Court while releasing respondentNo. 2 on bail. When the accused person is facing the trial underCSections 147, 148, 307, 302 and other offences of IPC, which canbe said to be are very serious offences, the High Court ought tohave given cogent reasons while releasing respondent No. 2 onbail except narrating the submissions made on behalf of theaccused and the State, no further independent reason has beengiven by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 onDbail. [Para 4][838-D-F]
Page 2 of 6
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court, it appears that it was submitted on behalf of theaccused that there was a dark night therefore, it was not possibleto identify the accused and/or the person who attacked and itEappears that without giving any cogent reason the High Courthas prima facie accepted the same. However, it is required to benoted that the accused persons were known to the complainant.There was a prior enmity. They came in a tractor. Therefore, atthis stage it could not have been concluded and/or opined that itFwas not possible to identify the accused. Be that as it may, evenotherwise the aforesaid can be said to be a defence on the part ofthe accused which is required to be considered at the time oftrial. In the present case in the FIR the injured - informant –complainant has specifically named the accused persons. Evenin his statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC theGinformant has stood by what he has stated in the FIR. Under thecircumstances, when the nature of allegations and the seriousnessand gravity of the offences has not at all been considered by theHigh Court and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned bythe High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 – accused onHbail, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainableand was quashed and set aside. [Para 4.1][838-G-H; A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1509 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 18.01.2022 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49828 of 2021.
Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Devvrat Pradhan,Narender Kaushik, Shreeji Bhavsar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, B. N. Dubey, AkshaySaxena, Nitin Saluja, Varun Pandit, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Page 3 of 6
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned finaljudgment and order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49828 of2021, by which, the High Court has directed to release respondent No. 2– original accused on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police StationFalavda, District Meerut for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, originalinformant – original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 2herein and others were specifically named in the FIR. A land disputewas going on between respondent No. 2 – Mehtab and the complainantside. It was specifically alleged in the FIR which was given by theappellant that the land dispute of a land in possession of informant –Yashpal Singh was pending in the Court against accused Mehtab andDeepak. It was further alleged that on intervening night of 29/30.06.2021a tractor was driven over standing crops on the disputed land in questionby the accused persons with intention to take over possession and allthese accused persons were armed with pistols, lathi, iron rod etc. Itwas further alleged that informant along with his family members andpeople of village came to the spot and at that time accused personsattacked them with intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal brotherof informant died on the spot and Sunder, Naresh, Mohit, Luvkush and A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
AAnkush were seriously injured. It was further alleged that accused Vikas@ Pappu fired shot at the deceased and the accused persons fledextending threat of death. During the investigation, the statement ofinjured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded and he supportedthe FIR version.
Page 4 of 6
B2.1 That thereafter respondent No. 2 herein, after his arrest andafter his bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court, approached theHigh Court by way of present bail application. By the impugned judgmentand order without considering the seriousness and/or gravity of theoffences committed by the accused more particularly respondent No. 2and without giving any reason, has released respondent No. 2 on bail.C3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.
4. We have gone through the allegations made in the FIR. It isrequired to be noted that the land dispute between respondent No. 2 –DMehtab and complainant side is the motive. It is alleged in the FIR thaton the earlier night they ran over the tractor on the standing crop and theaccused persons tried to take over the possession. That thereafter whenthe informant and others gathered at the spot the accused persons namedin the FIR attacked them and in the said incident brother of the informantdied and other persons were seriously injured. The aforesaid aspect hasEnot at all been considered by the High Court while releasing respondentNo. 2 on bail. No reason whatsoever has been given by the High Courtwhile releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. When the accused person isfacing the trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and other offences ofIPC, which can be said to be are very serious offences, the High CourtFought to have given cogent reasons while releasing respondent No. 2 onbail except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused andthe State, no further independent reason has been given by the HighCourt while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail.
4.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighGCourt, it appears that it was submitted on behalf of the accused thatthere was a dark night therefore, it was not possible to identify the accusedand/or the person who attacked and it appears that without giving anycogent reason the High Court has prima facie accepted the same.However, it is required to be noted that the accused persons were knownto the complainant. There was a prior enmity. They came in a tractor.
H
Page 5 of 6
Therefore, at this stage it could not have been concluded and/or opinedthat it was not possible to identify the accused. Be that as it may, evenotherwise the aforesaid can be said to be a defence on the part of theaccused which is required to be considered at the time of trial. In thepresent case in the FIR the injured - informant – complainant hasspecifically named the accused persons. Even in his statement recordedunder Section 161 of the CrPC the informant has stood by what he hasstated in the FIR. Under the circumstances, when the nature of allegationsand the seriousness and gravity of the offences has not at all beenconsidered by the High Court and no reasons whatsoever have beenassigned by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 – accusedon bail, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtdirecting to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court releasing respondent No. 2 on bail in connection withCase Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police Station Falavda, District Meerutfor the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441,323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside.Now, respondent No. 2 – accused to surrender before the concernedJail Authority forthwith. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 6 of 6
Loading citations and judicial treatment…