NEERU YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 29-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 802 
NEERUYADAV 
v. 
STATE OF U.P.ANDANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1272 Of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 201~ 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRA~ULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439 - Special 
powers of High Court or Court of Session reg~rding bail -
C Exercise of jurisdiction by High Court u/s. 439 - High Court 
enlarged respondent no.2 on bail on the basis of parity-
Sustainability of the order- Held: High Court totally ignored 
the criminal antecedents of the accused - High Court 
0 
weighed the doctrine of parity- Respondent no.2 is a history-
sheeter and is involved in heinous offences which cannot be 
regarded as jejune - Law expects· the judiciary to be alert 
while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large 
andthe emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and 
E not in a whimsical manner-:- Thus, the order passed by the 
High Court is set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the list, it is quite vivid 
F that the respondent no.2 is a history-sheeter and is 
involved in heinous offences. Having stated the facts and 
noting the nature of involvement of the accused in the 
crimes in question, there can be no scintilla of doubt to 
name him a "history-sheeter". The High Court totally 
G ignored the criminal. antecedents of the accused. What 
weighed with the High Court was the doctrine of parity. 
A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes 
reproduced herein, are not minor offences so that he is · 
not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of 
H" heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of 
802 
NEERU YADAVv. STATE OF U.P. 
803 
imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do A 
create a thunder and lightening having the effect 
potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The 
law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these 
kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, 
the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and B 
not in a whimsical manner. [Paras 9, 15] [810-G-H; 814-
B-C] 
1.2 It is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the 
cancellation is not sought because o~ supervening C 
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 D 
the lancination of the impugned order. The order passed 
by the High Court is set aside. If the respondent no.2 is 
at large, he would be taken into custody forthwith; and 
if he is still in custody because of certain other cases, 
he would not be admitted to bail in connection with the E 
instant case. [Para 18, 19) [814-G-H; 815-A-B] 
Chaman Lal v. State of U.P (2004) 7 SCC 525: 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 584 - relied on. 
State of U.P. v. Marmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 
2:2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454; Puran v. Rambilas 
(2001) 6 ~cc 338: 2001 (3) SCR 432; Nareodra 
K. Amin v. State of Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 
F 
584:2008 (6) SCR 1149; Prakash Kadam v. 
G 
Ramprasad Vishwanah Gupta (2011) 6 SCC 
189:2011(6) SCR 800; Ram Govind Upadhyay 
v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598:2002 (2) 
SCR 526; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi 
(2001) 4 SCC 280:2001 (2) SCR 684; Prasanta 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]10S.C.R. 
A 
KumarSarkarv. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 
496:2010 (12) SCR 1165 - referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to. 
. Para 5 
2001 (3) SCR 432 
referred to. 
Para 5 
2008 (6) SCR 1149 
referred to. 
Para 5 
2011(6) SCR 800 
referred to. 
Para 5 
2002 (2) SCR 526 
referred to. 
Para 10 
2001 (2) SCR 684 
referred to. 
Para 10 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 584 relied on. 
Para 11 
2010 (12) SCR 1165 
referred to. 
Para 12 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1272 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2014 of the 
High Court, Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail 
Application No. 25466 of 2014. 
-
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Manju Jetley for the Appellant. 
R. K. Dash, Abhisth Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar, Somraj 
Choudhary, Archana Singh, P. George Giri, Ginesh P. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 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 
H herein, and further to wreck his vengeance has appro

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