Jermani Yadav Vs.
State of Bihar
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave
granted. By the order of the High Court, the appellant has been apparently
granted bail. But in reality that is not so, because the High Court put an
extraordinary rider that the appellant would come out only after remaining in
jail for the same period as another co-accused in the case, namely Bipin Yadav.
Consequently, the appellant
must remain in jail upto November 24, 2014. According to the prosecution case,
in revenge for the killings of Shambhu Yadav and Jagdev Yadav, the accused, including
the present appellant, picked up one Gorakh Yadav (a child aged about 10
years), who happened to be the nephew of one of the accused who killed Shambhu Yadav
and Jagdev Yadav. The appellant and the other accused in the case are alleged
to have brought the child to the spot where the bodies of their associates and friends
Shambhu Yadav and Jagdev Yadav were lying and killed him there by gunshots. The
occurrence took place on December 08, 1999. The appellant was taken in custody 10
years later on November 24, 2009.
While pressing the bail
application before the High Court, it appears to have been submitted that
another co-accused in the case Bipin Yadav was released on bail. It may be noted
here that Bipin Yadav had surrendered on August 16, 2002 and he was released on
bail on March 15, 2007. The High Court might have rejected the bail application
of the appellant on the ground that he was an absconder for 10 years and his case
was, therefore, distinguishable from Bipin Yadav; or the High Court might have taken
steps for an expeditious conclusion of the appellant's trial. Instead, the High
Court adopted rather a strange course and while directing the appellant to be released
on bail added the condition that he would be enlarged on bail 'only after he completes
life period of custody as co-accused Bipin Yadav'.
As noted above,
before being released on bail Bipin Yadav had remained in jail for 4 years 6
months and 28 days. Consequently, the appellant may not be released before
November 24, 2014. We find the order of the High Court difficult to sustain. We,
accordingly, set aside the order and direct the High Court to reconsider the appellant's
application for bail afresh and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law. The criminal appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
..................J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
..................J.
(R.M. LODHA)
NEW
DELHI,
SEPTEMBER
02, 2011.
Jermani Yadav Vs.
State of Bihar
Date: 02/09/2011
These Petitions were
called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
AFTAB ALAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
R.M. LODHA For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Kundan Kumar
Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra,
Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Malviya,
Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted. The
criminal appeals are allowed.
(N.S.K.
Kamesh)
Court
Master
(S.S.R.
Krishna)
Court
Master
(signed
reportable order is placed on the file)
Back
Pages: 1 2
