Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – Complainant’s case that on account of previous enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification:
Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers from grave infirmity – High Court completely lost sight of the principles that conventionally govern a Court’s discretion at the time of deciding whether bail ought to be granted or not – High Court ignored that the complainant stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR and even after entering the witness-box, the complainant and three eyewitnesses specified the roles of the accused in the entire incident – High Court also overlooked the fact that the accused had previous criminal history – One of the accused while on bail, is alleged to have committed the double murder of the complainant’s son – Allegations that three of the accused threatened one of the key eye-witnesses in open Court, and an FIR was registered – High Court also overlooked the period of custody of the accused for such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them – Furthermore, in the cross-FIR filed by accused persons, closure was filed by the police – Protest petition filed by complainant is pending arguments – Thus, the accused do not deserve the concession of bail – Impugned orders quashed and set aside. [Paras 30-35]
Bail – Grant of, in cases involving serious offences – Relevant parameters to be considered:
Held: Courts to consider the nature of the accusations made against the accused; the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed; the gravity of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the criminal antecedents of the accused; the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused released on bail; and the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice. [Para 26]
Bail – Grant of – Cancellation, when – Considerations for setting aside the bail:
Held: Bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner – However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail always open to interference by the superior Court – If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail – Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order – Bail can be set aside when any supervening circumstances may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial, attempt to tamper with the evidence, threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail – However, the court to examine only a prima facie case, and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case to be avoided – Bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the court for granting relief to the accused. [Paras 27, 28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.