Yashpal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Yashpal Singh …Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final

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

Signature Not Verified Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.15 17:03:56 IST Reason: 302 and 34 of IPC, original informant – original

1 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 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 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 Ankush were seriously injured. It was

further alleged that accused Vikas @ Pappu fired shot at

the deceased and the accused persons fled extending

2 threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of

injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded

and he supported the FIR version.

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.

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 – 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

3 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.

4.1 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

4 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 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

5 order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2

on bail in connection with 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.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]

6