In the case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of NCT Delhi on 14 November 2017, the Supreme Court of India was faced with a complex criminal appeal. The case revolved around a violent altercation that took place on 21 October 2015, involving multiple parties. The main appellant, Anil Kumar Yadav, was one of several individuals implicated in the incident.
Facts of the Case
The prosecution’s case was that Rohit Bansal, along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh (who later died from injuries sustained during the incident), and Monu, had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in two separate cars. A quarrel broke out in the club, which later escalated into a violent confrontation outside the club. The accused allegedly blocked the road with their cars and attacked the victims with an iron rod and a cemented brick. Rupesh, who was severely injured during the altercation, later succumbed to his injuries.
Issues
The main issues revolved around the granting and subsequent cancellation of bail to the accused, including Anil Kumar Yadav. The trial court had granted bail to Yadav, citing lack of evidence of his direct involvement in the incident, based on CCTV footage and the fact that he had been in custody for about sixteen months. However, the High Court later cancelled the bail, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had gone into the merits of the case while granting bail, which was not the correct approach. The court also noted that the trial court had granted bail based on the alleged discrepancies in CCTV footage and discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which were not relevant considerations for the grant of bail. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s decision to cancel the bail, stating that the Sessions Court had proceeded to grant bail on an erroneous footing and had also gone into the merits of the materials collected.
The Supreme Court also observed that the considerations for framing of charge and grant of bail are different and it is not desirable to frame charge and grant bail by way of a common order. The court reiterated that while considering the question of grant of bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the minute details of the case is not warranted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to cancel the bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav and other accused. The court emphasized that each case for bail must be considered on its own merits, and the court must exercise its discretion judiciously. The court also stressed that the period inside the jail is not a relevant consideration for the grant of bail in crimes like murder.