DEEPAK YADAV VS STATE OF UP (CASE NO. 861 OF 2022) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION.
TITILE OF THE CASE: –
CANCELLATION OF BAIL CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE OCCURRENCE OF SUPERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES
BENCH
CJI NV RAMANA, JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI AND HIMA KOHLI.
FACTS: The appellant Deepak Yadav lodged an FIR being crime in Lucknow under section 307 against two respondent Harjit Yadav and Sushil Kumar and two other unknown persons as well. The allegation against the accused was that on midnight the appellant’s father Virendra Yadav as on the way to his home from the located near school and at the same time the accused persons took position on Kulhad Katta Bridge and fired at him with the common intention to kill him the bullet shot his right cheek and injured him severely. People present at the spot informed the local police and admitted the injured person at trauma centre, Lucknow medical college. The accused was arrested by the police and one country made pistol with him as well the injured person was passed away on account of his death the case got converted into section 302 of IPC. The co-accused Sushil Yadav surrendered before the magistrate. After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the trial court against the accused and co-accused under section 302 and 34 of IPC. Further the accused Harjit Yadav filed Bail Application before the session court and the same was rejected on the ground that he has been named on the basis of information provided by the investigation and documents. The accused then moved to the High Court for grating Bail Application approved were the co accused had grated the bail. In the case of DATARAM VS STATE OF UP the court provided some major essential for getting bail and to approve any bail application allowed.
whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction.
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail.
(v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused.
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated.
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced
ISSUES INVOLVED: –
The main issue arising in this case appeal for
Our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 439(1) of CRPC for grant bail in the fact of the present Case
RATIO DECIDENDI AND JUDGEMENT: –
The accused has clearly been named by the deceased and he was actively involved in the crime and also, he has some more criminal history have been lodged against him. The court has been observed the case and seen if the bail is fit in the given formula above. However, after seeing the matter the Supreme Court said that the high court is manifestly incorrect on its part of grating bail in this case. Grant bail to the respondent only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the high court. It is however clarified that observation made herein under are limited to the court consideration of the issue of cancelling bail as raised by the accused. The order shall also pass that, the accused from applying afresh for bail at a later stage if any new circumstances are brought into light.