(S.C.) 265 , 2015 (155 )AIC59 (S.C. ), AIR2015 SC 3703 , 2015 (91 ) ACC 596 , 2016 (1 ) ALT (Crl.) 210 (A.P.), 2015 (4 )BLJ(SC )198 , IV (2015 )CCR80 (SC ), 2016 (1 )CLJ(SC )84 , 2015 CriLJ4862 , 2015 (4 )Crimes101 (SC ), 2016 (2 )ECrN (NULL ) 11 , 2015 INSC 713 , 2015 (4 )J.L.J.R.262 , 2015 (4 )JCC2668 (SC ), 2015 (3 )N.C.C.133 , 2015 (4 )PLJR420 , 2015 (4 )RCR(Criminal)545 , 2015 (10 )SCALE234 , (2016 )15 SCC422 , 2016 (1 ) SCJ 351 , [2015 ]10 SCR802 , 2015 (3 )UC1941 , ,MANU/SC/1086/2015Dipak Misra#Prafulla C. Pant#2150SC3150Judgment/OrderACR#AD#AIC#AIR#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALT (Criminal)#BLJ#CCR#CLJ#CriLJ#Crimes#ECrN#INSC#JLJR#JCC#MANU#NCC#PLJR#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCR#UCDipak Misra,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2015-9-3015946,15947,15948,16125,16132,16233,16253,16300,16371,15913,15817,17459,16231,16237,16240,49837,49839,16193,16010 -->

MANU/SC/1086/2015

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1596 of 2015)

Decided On: 29.09.2015

Appellants: Neeru Yadav Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The present appeal, by special leave, on a summary glance may appear that a victim who might have an axe to grind against the accused, the Respondent No. 2 herein, and further to wreck his vengeance has approached this Court seeking cancellation of his bail, possibly being emboldened by the inaction of the State authorities who have chosen to maintain sphinx like silence or decided to assume the stagnated posture of a splendid sculpture of Rome, and invigorated by the thought that he can singularly carry the crusade, without any support, for he has a cause to vindicate by valiantly exposing the legal infirmities in the order passed by the High Court admitting the 2nd Respondent to bail and also unconceal the lackadaisical attitude of the State, but on a keener scrutiny the initial impression melts away and the perversity of the order impugned gets unrolled. Be it stated, at a narrow level it may look like a combat between two individuals, but when analytical scrutiny is done and the State is compelled to wake up from its slumber, the unveiling of facts reveal the contestation between the accord and the discord, the scuffle betwixt the sacrosanctity and the majesty of law on one hand and the maladroit ingenious efforts to get the benefit by the abuse of process of the Court on the other. The analysis has to be made, that being an imperative command, between the honest nidification and the surreptitious edifice.

2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the Appellant, with all the distress and the intellectual agony at his command, has submitted that the High Court without appropriate analysis and even without being fully apprised of the fact situation, solely on the basis of parity, as if it is the only foundation or for that matter, the comet that has come off to shine, has enlarged the Respondent No. 2 on bail totally being oblivious that no accused, however influential he may be or clever he thinks to be, cannot be allowed to nullify the sanctity and purity of law and jettison the age old values "truth in action" and "the firm and continuous desire to render to every one which is due", the two fundamental pillars of justice. ........