YASHPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

                        [2022] 4 S.C.R. 835                             835


                        YASHPAL SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
             STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2022)
                      SEPTEMBER 15, 2022                                B
         [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
                                                                        C
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:      D
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
                                                                        E
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       F
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,
                                                                        G
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-
                                                                        H
                                835
836           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H     bail, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
  YASHPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                            837


directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable              A
and was quashed and set aside. [Para 4.1][838-G-H; A-C]
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1509 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Orders dated 18.01.2022 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.     B
49828 of 2021.
     Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Devvrat Pradhan,
Narender Kaushik, Shreeji Bhavsar, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, B. N. Dubey, Akshay          C
Saxena, Nitin Saluja, Varun Pandit, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
                                                                            D
judgment and order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49828 of
2021, by which, the High Court has directed to release respondent No. 2
– original accused on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police Station
Falavda, District Meerut for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, original    E
informant – original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
       2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 2
herein and others were specifically named in the FIR. A land dispute
was going on between respondent No. 2 – Mehtab and the complainant
side. It was specifically alleged in the FIR which was given by the         F
appellant that the land dispute of a land in possession of informant –
Yashpal Singh was pending in the Court against accused Mehtab and
Deepak. It was further alleged that on intervening night of 29/30.06.2021
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
these accused persons were armed with pistols, lathi, iron rod etc. It      G
was further alleged that informant along with his family members and
people of village came to the spot and at that time accused persons
attacked them with intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal brother
of informant died on the spot and Sunder, Naresh, Mohit, Luvkush and
                                                                            H
838             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     Ankush were seriously injured. It was further alleged that accused Vikas
      @ Pappu fired shot at the deceased and the accused persons fled
      extending threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of
      injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded and he supported
      the FIR version.
B            2.1 That thereafter respondent No. 2 herein, after his arrest and
      after his bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court, approached the
      High Court by way of present bail application. By the impugned judgment
      and order without considering the seriousness and/or gravity of the
      offences committed by the accused more particularly respondent No. 2
      and without giving any reason, has released respondent No. 2 on bail.
C
            3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties at length.
             4. We have gone through the allegations made in the FIR. It is
      required to be noted that the land dispute between respondent No. 2 –
D     Mehtab and 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
E     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
F     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.
             4.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
G     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.
H
   YASHPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                             839
                    [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Therefore, at this stage it could not have been concluded and/or opined       A
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
                                                                              B
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             C
directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
       5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court releasing respondent No. 2 on bail in connection with          D
Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police Station Falavda, District Meerut
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441,
323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Now, respondent No. 2 – accused to surrender before the concerned
Jail Authority forthwith. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed.
                                                                              E

Ankit Gyan                                                  Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)



                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H