DEEPAK YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

DEEPAK YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

The High Court's order granting regular bail to Respondent No.2 was set aside because the High Court granted bail primarily on parity without applying its mind to relevant facts and evidence: Respondent No.2 was named in the FIR and by the deceased (dying declaration) as the shooter, a weapon was recovered from him, he had criminal antecedents and the offence was serious (Sections 302/34 IPC); therefore the grant of bail was unsustainable and the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed surrender within one week.

Parties
Appellant/informant: Deepak Yadav; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent No.2 / Accused: Harjeet Yadav
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Dated 22.10.2021 Granting Bail Under Section 439 Cr.p.c.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 22.10.2021 granting bail to Respondent No.2 set aside; bail cancelled.
Legal Topics
Bail, Cancellation of Bail, Section 439 Cr.p.c., Parity in Grant of Bail, Recording Reasons for Bail Orders
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Bail Cancellation of Bail Section 439 Cr.p.c. Parity in Grant of Bail Recording Reasons for Bail Orders

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deepak Yadav

Appellant/informant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Harjeet Yadav

Respondent No.2 / Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Dated 22.10.2021 Granting Bail Under Section 439 Cr.p.c.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in granting regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to Respondent No.2
  2. 2 Whether granting bail on the basis of parity without considering relevant materials amounts to non-application of mind
  3. 3 Whether bail granted by the High Court ought to be cancelled given the facts including dying declaration, recovery of weapon and criminal antecedents

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order granting regular bail to Respondent No.2 was set aside because the High Court granted bail primarily on parity without applying its mind to relevant facts and evidence: Respondent No.2 was named in the FIR and by the deceased (dying declaration) as the shooter, a weapon was recovered from him, he had criminal antecedents and the offence was serious (Sections 302/34 IPC); therefore the grant of bail was unsustainable and the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed surrender within one week.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 22.10.2021 granting bail to Respondent No.2 set aside; bail cancelled.

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 22.10.2021 of the High Court set aside
  • Bail bonds of Respondent No.2/Accused cancelled