Supreme Court: Deciding the matter where the legal pregnability of the Bail order passed by the High Court was called in question, the bench of Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant, JJ held that the grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
In the present case, where the respondent was a history sheeter and had been involved in heinous crimes, the Court said that the heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of rejection of bail. It was held that the High Court erred in applying doctrine of parity to the case at hand and thereby, ignoring the criminal antecedents of the respondent and further said that the law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
Taking note of the concept of liberty and it’s curtailment by law, the Court said that an individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself nor can he be a terror to the society. Stating that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character, the Court said that the victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. Hence, considering that the crimes committed by the respondent are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune, the Court set aside the High Court’s order. Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 862, decided on 29.09.2015
