Bail:
Prosecution u/ss. 302, 307, 324, 326, 120B, 148 and 149 IPC and ss. 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 – Bail applications filed by respondents-accused rejected by trial court – High Court granted bail – Complainant’s appeal – Held: A prima facie case is made out against the accused – The seriousness and gravity of the offence is evident from the Compact Disc (CD) – There is no reason to accord any special consideration to the respondent-accused (in Crl. A. No. 161 of 2018) for his not being Indian National – In the eyes of law every accused is the same,irrespective of their nationality – He is alleged to be the kingpin of the criminal conspiracy which demands his custodial interrogation – Accused in Crl. A. No. 162 of 2018 was granted bail on the basis of parity with the above accused – Bail order of that accused having been set aside, bail of this accused is also liable to be set aside – Accused in Crl. A. No.
163 of 2018 was granted bail without taking into consideration that he was declared a proclaimed offender – His bail is also liable to be set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. Appeal seeking cancellation of bail and appeal challenging an order granting bail – Distinction between.
Judiciary:
Judicial discipline – Held: It is not expected of High Court to pass a mandatory order commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail – Such mandatory directions breach the independence of subordinate courts – Bail.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2018:
1. A prima facie case is made out against the respondentaccused, as in the Compact Disc (CD) filed alongwith the petition, the group of persons are seen committing the offence using deadly weapons and sticks. The seriousness and gravity of the offence can be clearly observed from the CD. However, aforesaid observations must not be construed as findings on merits. Though respondent No. 1 is not a citizen of this country (British national), yet the fact remains that he along with other persons has indulged in the criminal activity. The case of the prosecution mainly revolves around him as he is alleged to be the kingpin of the criminal conspiracy which demands his custodial interrogation. In such circumstances, the High Court did not appreciate the facts of the case with prudent legal perception. There is no reason to accord any special consideration for respondent No.1 by virtue of a simple fact that he is a citizen of different country. The law under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is very clear and in the eyes of the law every accused is the same, irrespective of their nationality. [Para 11][331-H; 332-A-C]
2. This case is not an appeal seeking cancellation of bail in any sense rather, this case calls for the legal sustainability of the impugned order granting bail to the accused-respondent. The difference between the cancellation of the bail and a legal challenge to an order granting bail for non-consideration of material available on record is a settled proposition. To clarify, there is no ground pleaded herein that a supervening event breaching bail conditions is raised. [Para 12][332-D-E] State through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011) 6 SCC 189; Mohan v. State of Rajasthan [2017]
14 SCALE 280 – referred to.
Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2018:
3. The impugned judgment which granted bail to the respondent in this appeal on the basis of parity with respondent No. 1 in Crl. Appeal No. 161 of 2018. As his bail has alredy been set aside, thereby effacing the footing on which the grant of bail by the High Court stood. Otherwise also, this case is not fit for extending the liberty of bail. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent No. 1 is set aside. [Para 16][332-H; 333-A-B]
Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2018:
4. The order of the High Court on the first instance clearly points out that it has virtually directed the course of action to be undertaken by the subordinate court. It is not expected from the High Court to pass such mandatory orders commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail. Courts cannot issue mandatory directions which breach the independence of subordinate courts. Therefore, such circuitous method undertaken by the respondent in obtaining a bail is a gross abuse of the court process undertaken in bad faith. Moreover, he was declared as a proclaimed offender before the grant of bail, which was not taken into consideration by the High Court. Therefore, the order of the High Court is set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to take the respondent No. 1 into custody. [Para 25][335-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.