NEERU YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

NEERU YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

The High Court erred in granting bail solely on the doctrine of parity, ignoring the respondent's criminal antecedents and the heinous nature of the offences. Judicial discretion for bail must be exercised judiciously, not whimsically; the bail granted is unsustainable and is set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Neeru Yadav; Respondents: State of U.P. and another (Budhpal @ Buddhu s/o Sh. Ram)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Appeal Against Grant of Bail by High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Bail, Exercise of Discretion, Doctrine of Parity, Criminal Antecedents
Criminal Law Bail Exercise of Discretion Doctrine of Parity Criminal Antecedents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neeru Yadav

Appellant

State of U.P. and another (Budhpal @ Buddhu s/o Sh. Ram)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Appeal Against Grant of Bail by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to a person with serious criminal antecedents on the basis of parity.
  2. 2 Whether relevant factors including criminal history were disregarded in the exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in granting bail solely on the doctrine of parity, ignoring the respondent's criminal antecedents and the heinous nature of the offences. Judicial discretion for bail must be exercised judiciously, not whimsically; the bail granted is unsustainable and is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Order passed by the High Court granting bail is set aside.
  • If the respondent is at large, he shall be taken into custody forthwith.