Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Supreme Court cancelled the bail of respondents-accused granted by the High Court and granted a window to move for bail afresh in event of any new circumstances emerging at a later stage – Earlier also the High Court had granted bail and in appeal thereagainst this Court had remanded back the matter – In terms with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 1 applied for bail afresh – Trial Court rejected the same, however, the High Court granted bail – Interference with:
Held: Scheme of the Constitution mandates that all Orders/Judgments of this Court have to be given due deference to by all other Courts, including the High Courts, in letter and in spirit – Both the earlier Orders/Judgments cancelling bail to respondent no.1 would leave no doubt that this Court examined all material aspects – Ultimately, this Court concluded that, in the circumstances, grant of bail was unjustified, both on facts and in law, while keeping a limited window open in futuro, which assumes significance yet was not properly appreciated by the High Court – Considerations which have weighed with the Single Judge while penning the impugned order are disturbing – Observations such as ‘one sided investigation by police’ and ‘ignoring the case of accused side’ besides being thoroughly unwarranted, had absolutely no nexus with the prayer for bail which the Single Judge was seized of – Given the heinous nature of the alleged offences, it was not open to the High Court to make overcrowding in jails’ as a ground to allow bail – Further, the impugned order notes certain facts but does not really offer insight into the actual view of the High Court thereon or on the ‘new circumstances’ sought to be put forth by respondent no.1 – Moreover, the impugned order omitted to consider the detailed judgment passed by this Court to cull out whether ‘new circumstances’ had emerged to enlarge respondent no.1 on bail – Over-burdened docket is no justification for formulaic justice – High Court fell in error and has consequently offered up the impugned order for interdiction – When this Court had, while cancelling and/or setting aside bail granted on two previous occasions, examined all relevant aspects in extenso, it was incumbent upon the High Court to provide comprehensive reasoning, moreso, in light of this Court’s observation of future consideration of bail ‘at a later stage’ – Impugned order quashed – Bail granted to respondent no.1 set aside – Respondent no.1 to remain in custody and not be enlarged on bail till the conclusion of the trial – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 352, 302, 307,
504 and 34. [Paras 13, 16, 18, 20]
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.