YASHPAL SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 15-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
YASHPAL SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Bail – Cancellation of – Allegedly a land dispute was going
on between respondent no.2-original accused and original
informant-Complainant – It was also alleged that accused persons
had attacked informant and other persons – In the said incident
brother of informant died on the spot and others were seriously
injured – FIR was registered – Respondent no.2 was arrested – Bail
of respondent no.2 was rejected by the trial Court – High Court
released respondent no. 2 on bail – Complainant approached
Supreme Court and challenged the validity of grant of bail – Held:
That on the day of incident, 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 the accused persons were
armed – Informant and others gathered at the spot and accused
persons attacked them and in the said incident brother of informant
died on the spot and others were seriously injured – The said aspect
was not considered by the High Court – No reasons were given by
the High Court while granting bail – Submission of the accused
that there was dark night, therefore, it was not possible to identify
the accused was accepted by the High Court without giving any
reason – However, the accused persons were known to the informant
as there was an previous enimty – Also, informant had specifically
named accused persons in FIR – Nature and seriousness of
allegations and gravity of offences also not considered by the High
Court – Order and judgment of bail of the High Court unsustainable
and set aside – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 147, 148, 149, 324, 427,
441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court have gone through the allegations
made in the FIR. The land dispute between respondent No. 2-
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 835
835
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
original accused and informant-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. [Para 4][838-D-F]
2. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
directing to release respondent No

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