NEERU YADAV versus STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 16-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 12 S.C.R. 453 
NEERU YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2587 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 16, 2014. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 - Bail -
Grant of - By the High Court - To the offender in a criminal 
case u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B C 
/PC - Propriety of - Held: The accused was a history-sheeter 
and number of cases have been lodged against him - In the 
present case allegations against him were different from the 
co-accused - Therefore, grant of bail by the High Court on 
the ground of parity without scrutinizing every aspect of the 
D 
'case, was not justified - The order, granting bail is set aside 
-8~ 
. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The liberty is a priceless treasure for a 
E 
human being. It is founded on the bed rock of 
constitutional 'right and accentuated further on human 
rights principle. It is basically a natural right. It cannot be 
allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of 
liberty of a person has enormous. impact on his mind as 
F 
well as body. But, the liberty of an individual is not 
absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through 
process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has 
sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes 
' 
a danger to the collective and to the societal order. G 
Therefore, when 
an 
individual behaves 
in a 
disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things 
which the society disapproves, the legal consequences 
are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court cannot 
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at 
its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the 
established parameters of law. [Para 16] [463-C-H; 464-
A, B] 
2. Respondent No. 2 is a history-sheeter and number 
B of cases have been lodged against him. Most of the cases 
instituted against him are still pending and some of them 
are u/s. 302 IPC and other heinous offences. In the 
present case 2nd respondent had fired at the deceased. 
Two persons were also injured in the attack. The 
C occurrence took place in the broa.d day light. The 
allegations against the co-accused and the 2nd 
respondent are different. [Paras 14 and 15] [461-E-F; 462-
H; 463-A-C] 
3. When a stand was taken that the 2nd respondent 
D was a history sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the · 
High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not 
capriciously record that .the 2nd respondent was entitled 
to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It was not 
a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order 
E clearl.y exposes the non-application of mind. 
. 
. 
' 
Consequently, the order passed by the High Court 
admitting respondent No.2 on bail is set aside. [Paras 17 
and 18] [464-C-D, F] 
F 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 
SCC 598: 2002 (2) SCR 52; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, 
Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 (2) SCR 684; Chaman Lal 
V. 
State of U.P. 
(2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 584; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee 
, 
G (2010) 14 sec 496: 2010 (12) SCR 1165 - relied on. 
Case Law Refererice: 
2002 (2) SCR 526 
relied on 
Pa~a 10 
2001 (2) SCR 684 
relied on 
Para 10 
H 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR584 relied ori 
Para 11 
NEERU YADAV v. STATE 
455 
2010 (12) SCR 1165 
relied on 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2587 of 2014. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2014 of the High 
Court, Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Ball Applicaton 
B 
No. 31078 of 2014. 
Puruish Jitendra Malkan, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Jitendra. 
Malkan, Manju Sharma Jetley, Alok Singh for the Appellant. 
c 
Ratnakar Dash, Abhisth Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Praveen 
Chaturvedi, Jyoti Chaturvedi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question 
the legal substantiality and ~efensibility of the order dated 
·22.09.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at 
Allahabad in <i(riminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31078 of 
E 
_ 2014 whereby t/ie learned Judge, in exercise of power under 
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) had 
admitted the 2nd respondent to bail in Crime No. 237 of 2013 
instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 
302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code (IPC). 
F 
3. As the impugned or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.