Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

YASHPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Supreme Court Of India

Sep 15, 2022

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

A land dispute existed between the complainant (Yashpal Singh) and the accused Mehtab (respondent No. 2) and others in Meerut District. On the night of 29/30 June 2021, the accused allegedly drove a tractor over standing crops to seize possession of the contested land. When the complainant, his family, and other villagers intervened, the accused—armed with pistols, lathis, and iron rods—allegedly attacked them. Sompal, the complainant’s brother, was killed and several others were seriously injured. An FIR was lodged naming the accused, including Mehtab. After arrest, Mehtab’s bail was denied by the Trial Court, but the High Court of Allahabad granted bail on 18 January 2022. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s bail order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to respondent No. 2 despite the gravity of the offences and the evidence on record.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (Original Informant)

The offences alleged—Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and related provisions of the IPC—are extremely serious, involving death and multiple injuries.
The FIR and Section 161 CrPC statement of the injured eye-witness (the appellant) specifically name respondent No. 2, showing prima facie involvement.
The High Court granted bail without considering the seriousness of the crime or giving cogent reasons, making the order unsustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused)

Because the incident occurred on a dark night, it was not possible to identify who attacked; hence, the appellant’s version was unreliable.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court scrutinised the FIR and the investigative record, noting:

The land dispute provided a clear motive for the crime.
The appellant had consistently named respondent No. 2 in both the FIR and his Section 161 CrPC statement.
The High Court’s bail order merely recited submissions of counsel and did not independently assess the gravity of the offences or the material on record.
The defence contention that the darkness prevented identification is a matter for trial, not for consideration at the bail stage, especially when the accused were known to the complainant and were allegedly seen arriving on a tractor.

Because the High Court failed to supply cogent reasons while dealing with offences of such seriousness, its order was found to be “unsustainable.”

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The Supreme Court directed respondent No. 2 to surrender before the concerned jail authorities forthwith.

Implications: The accused’s liberty stands revoked, and he must remain in custody pending trial. The Court did not establish a new legal precedent but reinforced the requirement that High Courts provide reasoned orders when granting bail in serious offences.

Show all summary ...

M.R. Shah, J.:— 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 Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, original 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 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 threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of injured eye witness - appellant herein has been recorded and he supported the FIR version.

3. 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.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

5. 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 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.

6. 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 directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. 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 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.