/2022 INSC 0806/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1509 OF 2022
Yashpal Singh       …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.             …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307,
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