ANIL KUMAR YADAV versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 14-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 11 S.C.R. 195 
ANIL KUMAR YADAV 
v. 
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 14,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Bail: 
Grant of bail-In a case u/s.302 & 308 dw s.34 IPC-Propriety 
of- Held: While considering question of grant of bail, it is necessary 
to consider prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits 
should be avoided - There is no hard and fast rule for grant or 
reji1sal of bail - Each case is required to be considered on its ow11 
merit - Jn the present case, Sessio11s Court seems lo have gone into 
A 
B 
c 
the merits of the prosecution case, while granting bail - In crimes 
0 
like murde1; the period of i11carceralion by itself would not entitle 
the accused to be e11/arged on bail - The materials on record show 
'prima facie' case against the accused- Sessions court granted bail 
on irrelevant co11siderations - Trial court is yet to record the 
testimony of material witnesses - For ensuring fair trial, it is 
11ecessary that accused are not enlarged on bail - Though liberty 
of the accused is a relevant consideration as he is only an under 
trial, it is equally important to consider the impact of their release 
on bail - A balance has to be struck, in order to ensure that during 
trial witnesses depose without fear and justice is done to the society 
- High Court rightly cancelled the bail granted by Sessions Court. 
Grant of bail - Interference with - By High Court -
Permissibility - Held: Sessions Court grants bail in exercise of its 
discretion - Such discretion normally not be interfered with by High 
court - But can i11te1fere, if the bail order suffers from serious 
infirmities or perversity. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Framing of charges and grant of bail - By common order -
Propriety of such practice - Held: Considerations for framing of 
charge and for grant of bail are different - Therefore, such practice 
is not desirable. 
195 
E 
F 
G 
H 
196 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] JI S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The Sessions Court considered both framing of 
charges and also grant of bail to accused No.4 by way of a common 
order. Insofar as framing of charges, in a case before the Sessions 
Court, under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the 
court is required to consider "whether there is ground for 
presuming thit the accused has committed an offence ..... " and 
then Court shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 
For grant of bail, the court is required to consider several other 
factors. The considerations for framing of charge and grant of 
bail arc different. It is not desirable to frame charge and grant 
bail by way of a common order. [Para 17][204-D-F) 
2.1 While considering the question of grant of bail, Court 
should avoid consideration of details of the evidence as it is not a 
relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima 
fucie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case 
D 
should be avoided. [Para 16)[204-C] 
Puran v. Rambi/as and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 
(2001) 3 SCR 432 - relied on. 
2.2 Whil11 granting bail, the relevant considerations arc:-
E 
(i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the 
evidence and circumstances which arc peculiar to the accused; 
and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the 
impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, 
its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No 
doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There arc no hard and fast rules 
F 
regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered 
on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise 
of discretion by the Court. [Para 18][204-G-H) 
Stale of U.P. through CBI >: Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 
8 SCC 21 : (2005) 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Jayendra 
G 
Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 
(2005) I SCR 160 - relied on. 
H 
2.3 In the present case, accused No. 4 was granted bail by 
the Sessions Court mainly on the grounds:- (i) as per CCTV 
ANIL KUMAR YADAV v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 
197 
footage deciphered by the Investigating Officer, no role could be 
A 
attributed to accused No. 4 that he inflicted injuries on the injured 
witness as well as to deceased and the photographs do not show 
the presence of the acc'used No. 4 (ii) CCTV footage do not 
corroborate the statement of the witnesses that the accused along 
with their cars were 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.