Arun Tandon, Vipin Sinha, JJ. - (1.) This is an application filed by the informant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of appellants Teekam Singh, Jagveer, Ashu and Sanju in the appeal under order dated 20.12.2011. What has been stated before us is that the bail application of Teekam Singh, Jagveer, Ashu and Sanju in the present appeal came up for consideration before the Court on 20.12.2011. On the same day, learned A.G.A. had filed a counter affidavit in the shape of objections to the grant of bail before the Court. In paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit, so filed, details of the criminal cases, which were registered against the accused -appellants, were specifically disclosed, which are as follows: "Criminal History of Accused -Appellant No. 1, Teekam Singh (I) Case crime No. 782 of 2008, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (II) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Ss. 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. Criminal History of Accused -Appellant No. 2, Jagveer (I) Case crime No. 502 of 2007, under Ss. 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (II) Case crime No. 782 of 2008, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (III) Case crime No. 288 of 2009, under Ss. 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (IV) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Ss. 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. Criminal History of Accused -Appellant No. 3, Ashu (I) Case crime No. 908 of 2007, under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (II) Case crime No. 940 of 2007, under Ss. 25 Arms Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (III) Case crime No. 782 of 2008, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (IV) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Ss. 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. Criminal History of Accused -Appellant No. 4, Sanju (I) Case crime No. 332 of 2007, under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (II) Case crime No. 502 of 2007, under Ss. 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (III) Case crime No. 289 of 2009, under Sec. 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (IV) Case crime No. 782 of 2008, under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, I.P.C. and 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. (V) NCR No. 5 of 2011, under Ss. 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr." It is stated that from the record itself, it is apparent that neither any time was prayed for by the learned Counsel for the appellants to rebut the allegations made in the counter affidavit nor the High Court had granted any such time.
(2.) It is further apparent from the record that the High Court while granting the bail has not even taken notice of the criminal antecedents of the appellants as were disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the State. Because of such non consideration of the material facts including the criminal antecedents of the accused -appellants, the order granting bail to the appellants is rendered perverse in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Neeru Yadav v/s. State of U.P. and another, in Criminal Appeal No. 2587 of 2014 and in the other judgment by the same name i.e. Neeru Yadav v/s. State of U.P. and another, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 on 16.12.2014 and 29.9.2015.
(3.) The Apex Court has used strongest possible words in the matter of non consideration of the criminal antecedents of a convicted accused -appellant while granting bail by the High Court and it has been held that the order granting bail without considering the relevant facts as disclosed in the objections including criminal history is unjustified, illegal and perverse.;