Neeru Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr

The present appeal, by special leave, on a summary glance may appear that a victim who might have an axe to grind against the accused, the respondent no.2 herein, and further to wreck his vengeance has approached this Court seeking cancellation of his bail, possibly being emboldened by the inaction of the State authorities who have chosen to maintain sphinx like silence or decided to assume the stagnated posture of a splendid sculpture of Rome, and invigorated by the thought that he can singularly carry the crusade, without any support, for he has a cause to vindicate by valiantly exposing the legal infirmities in the order passed by the High Court admitting the 2nd respondent to bail and also unconceal the lackadaisical attitude of the State, but on a keener scrutiny the initial impression melts away and the perversity of the order impugned gets unrolled. Be it stated, at a narrow level it may look like a combat between two individuals, but when analytical scrutiny is done and the State is compelled to wake up from its slumber, the unveiling of facts reveal the contestation between the accord and the discord, the scuffle betwixt the sacrosanctity and the majesty of law on one hand and the maladroit ingenious efforts to get the benefit by the abuse of process of the Court on the other. The analysis has to be made, that being an imperative command, between the honest nidification and the surreptitious edifice.

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, we shall proceed to adumbrate the requisite factual score. One Salek Chand s/o. Satpal Singh lodged an FIR at P.S. Kavinagar, Ghaziabad on 25.02.2013 about 11.45 a.m. against certain persons relating to the murder of his elder brother, Yashvir Yadav. On the basis of the lodging of the FIR, the criminal law was set in motion and eventually chargesheet was filed which formed the subject matter of Case Crime No. 237 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B read with Section 34 IPC. After the application for bail was rejected by the learned trial Judge, the accused person, respondent no.2, moved the High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25466 of 2014. It was contended before the High Court that an omnibus role had been ascribed to him and the other accused persons that they had indulged in general firing as a consequence of which one person had died, for he had received three gun shot injuries. It was also contended that there was no credible evidence against the accused persons. The real plank of submission before the High Court, as is perceptible, was that prayer for bail in respect of 11 accused persons including Mitthan Yadav had already been allowed, and there was no justification to deny him the said benefit as he was similarly placed.

18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order

19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. If the respondent no.2 is at large, he shall be taken into custody forthwith; and if he is still in custody because of certain other cases, he shall not be admitted to bail in connection with the present case. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to other cases and simultaneously we also clearly state that our observations in this case are only meant for purpose of setting aside the order granting bail and would have no impact or effect during the trial.

[Prafulla C. Pant] New Delhi September 29, 2015