Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Accused in Uttar Pradesh Murder Case: Legal Analysis

The case of Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another is a significant legal battle regarding the cancellation of bail granted to three accused persons in a criminal case involving murder and related offenses. The case stems from a land dispute that escalated into violence, leading to a fatality and serious injuries. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court was justified, given the gravity of the charges.

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, where a long-standing property dispute led to an altercation resulting in the murder of Sompal, the brother of the complainant. According to the FIR filed in Case Crime No. 95/2021, the accused—Narendra, Krishanpal, and Harendra—allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and participated in the attack on the complainant’s family.

The FIR included charges under the following sections of the IPC:

• Section 147 – Rioting
• Section 148 – Rioting with deadly weapons
• Section 149 – Unlawful assembly with a common object
• Section 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
• Section 427 – Mischief causing damage
• Section 441 – Criminal trespass
• Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt
• Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
• Section 447 – Criminal trespass
• Section 307 – Attempt to murder
• Section 302 – Murder
• Section 34 – Acts done by several persons with a common intention

High Court’s Ruling

The accused had been granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in different orders dated January 19, 2022, February 9, 2022, and March 4, 2022. The complainant challenged these bail orders in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had erred in its assessment and had not taken into account the severity of the charges.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-imposes-30-year-fixed-term-sentence-in-heinous-crime-case/

Arguments by the Complainant

The complainant, represented by legal counsel, presented the following arguments:

• The accused, Narendra and Harendra, had initially absconded and only surrendered after a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued. This indicated that they were evading arrest and should not be granted bail.
• A country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of the accused Narendra, which directly linked him to the crime.
• All three accused were named in both the FIR and the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
• The accused were part of an unlawful assembly, and their involvement in the crime was well-established.
• The High Court had failed to properly assess the seriousness of the charges and had granted bail without recording sufficient reasons.
• The Supreme Court, in an earlier ruling in the same case (Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2022), had already canceled the bail of another co-accused, Mehtab, the father of Narendra and Harendra.

Arguments by the Accused

The accused, represented by their counsel, argued:

• They had been on bail since early 2022, and there were no allegations of misuse of bail.
• The trial had already begun, making bail cancellation unnecessary.
• They were falsely implicated due to a land dispute between their father, Mehtab, and the complainant.
• There was no direct evidence against them, apart from their alleged presence at the scene.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, ruled in favor of the complainant, stating that:

• The High Court had granted bail without considering the gravity of the charges.
• The offenses involved, particularly murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), required a detailed evaluation before granting bail.
• The High Court’s reasoning was inadequate, as it had cited jail overcrowding as one of the grounds for bail.
• All three accused were part of an unlawful assembly, and their individual roles were not a valid basis for granting bail.

The Court made the following critical observation:

“When the accused persons are facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, and other offenses of IPC, which can be said to be very serious offenses, the High Court ought to have given cogent reasons while releasing the respective accused on bail.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-acquits-accused-in-murder-case-due-to-lack-of-evidence/

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the bail orders and directed the accused to surrender immediately, failing which they were to be taken into custody. The ruling serves as a strong precedent for cases involving serious criminal charges, reinforcing that bail should not be granted without a thorough examination of the allegations.

Petitioner Name: Yashpal Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 28-03-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: yashpal-singh-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-03-2023.pdf