DEEPAK YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1
1
DEEPAK YADAV
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 439 – Bail –
Cancellation of – Accused with the common intention to kill the
victim, inflicted gun shot injuries to victim who later succumbed to
his injuries – Before death, the victim gave statement naming the
accused and the co-accused which was recorded by the DSP and
SI – Criminal case against accused and co-accused u/ss. 302 and
34 IPC – Rejection of bail to the accused by the Sessions Court,
however, granted by the High Court on the ground of parity as the
co-accused was granted bail – Sustainbility of – Held: Not
sustainable – In case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing
cancellation of bail, which was already granted – Cancellation of
bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances – Even in the absence of the supervening
circumstances, the Court has the inherent powers and discretion to
grant bail – On facts, High Court granted bail to the accused without
considering the relevant facts and circumstances and appropriate
evidence which proves that the accused was charged with a serious
offence – Granting of bail on the basis of parity shows that the
order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it
unsustainable – Criminal history, nature of crime, material evidences
and recovery of weapon from the possession of the accused not
considered by the High Court – Thus, the order passed by the High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 439 of the CrPC is the guiding principle
for adjudicating a Regular Bail Application wherein Court takes
into consideration several aspects. The jurisdiction to grant bail
has to be exercised cautiously on the basis of well - settled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each
case. [Para 19][10-F]
1.2 The importance of assigning reasoning for the grant or
denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need
to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail
where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound
reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion
has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all
the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations. [Para 26][14-F-G]
1.3 Bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial
to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of
cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which
was already granted). [Para 30][17-D-E]
1.4 Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence
of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the
inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused
even in the absence of supervening circumstances. [Para 31][18-
A-B]
1.5 In the instant case, the respondent no.2/accused was
arrested on 13.01.2021 subsequent to which, he had applied for
regular bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected on the
ground that he is named in the FIR on the basis of the information
provided by the deceased himself and that the same has been
clarified after perusal of the documents/forms that the bullet was
shot by the respondent no.2/accused himself. Being aggrieved
by the same, respondent no.2/accused filed an application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking regular bail.
The High Court granted bail to the respondent no.2/accused
without considering the relevant facts and circumstances. [Para
35][20-A-C]
1.6 A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the
High Court failed to take into consideration that the respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
no.2/accused has been named in the FIR lodged under Sections
302 and 34 IPC and was the main assailant who had a weapon in
his hand; that the main role of respondent no.2/accused was that
he opened fire at the deceased due to which the bullet hit his
right cheek and made its exit through the other side; that the
deceased succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2021; that the
r

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