Yashpal Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Yashpal Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2022
Yashpal Singh …Appellant(s)
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
judgment and order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 49828 of 2021, 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 Station
Falavda, District Meerut for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307,
302 and 34 of IPC, original informant – original
complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent
No. 2 herein and others were specifically named in the FIR.
A land dispute was going on between respondent No. 2 –
Mehtab and the complainant side. It was specifically
alleged in the FIR which was given by the appellant that
the land dispute of a land in possession of informant –
Yashpal Singh was pending in the Court against accused
Mehtab and Deepak. It was further alleged that on
intervening night of 29/30.06.2021 a tractor was driven
over standing crops on the disputed land in question by
the accused persons with intention to take over possession
and all these accused persons were armed with pistols,
lathi, iron rod etc. It was further alleged that informant
along with his family members and people of village came
to the spot and at that time accused persons attacked
them with intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal
brother of informant died on the spot and Sunder, Naresh,
Mohit, Luvkush and Ankush were seriously injured. It was
further alleged that accused Vikas @ Pappu fired shot at
the deceased and the accused persons fled extending
threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of
injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded
and he supported the FIR version.
2.1 That thereafter respondent No. 2 herein, after his arrest
and after his bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court,
approached the High Court by way of present bail
application. By the impugned judgment and order without
considering the seriousness and/or gravity of the offences
committed by the accused more particularly respondent
No. 2 and without giving any reason, has released
respondent No. 2 on bail.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
4. We have gone through the allegations made in the FIR. It
is required to be noted that the land dispute between
respondent No. 2 – Mehtab and complainant side is the
motive. It is alleged in the FIR that on the earlier night
they ran over the tractor on the standing crop and the
accused persons tried to take over the possession. That
thereafter when the informant and others gathered at the
spot the accused persons named in the FIR attacked them
and in the said incident brother of the informant died and
other persons were seriously injured. The aforesaid aspect
has not at all been considered by the High Court while
releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. No reason whatsoever
has been given by the High Court while releasing
respondent No. 2 on bail. When the accused person is
facing the trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and
other offences of IPC, which can be said to be are very
serious offences, the High Court ought to have given
cogent reasons while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail
except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the
accused and the State, no further independent reason has
been given by the High Court while releasing respondent
No. 2 on bail.
4.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that it was submitted on behalf of
the accused that there was a dark night therefore, it was
not possible to identify the accused and/or the person who
attacked and it appears that without giving any cogent
reason the High Court has prima facie accepted the same.
However, it is required to be noted that the accused
persons were known to the complainant. There was a prior
enmity. They came in a tractor. Therefore, at this stage it
could not have been concluded and/or opined that it was
not possible to identify the accused. Be that as it may,
even otherwise the aforesaid can be said to be a defence on
the part of the accused which is required to be considered
at the time of trial. In the present case in the FIR the
injured informant – complainant has specifically named
the accused persons. Even in his statement recorded
under Section 161 of the CrPC the informant has stood by
what he has stated in the FIR. Under the circumstances,
when the nature of allegations and the seriousness and
gravity of the offences has not at all been considered by
the High Court and no reasons whatsoever have been
assigned by the High Court while releasing respondent No.
2 – accused on bail, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court directing to release respondent
No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2
on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of
Police Station Falavda, District Meerut for 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 concerned Jail Authority forthwith.
The present Appeal is accordingly allowed.
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]