Criminal Procedure — Grant of bail — Distinction between cancellation of bail and reversal of bail order — Scope of interference by superior Court — Held, where order granting bail ignores gravity of offence, relevant material and is founded on extraneous considerations, superior Court is justified in setting aside such order — Present case falls in category of reversal of perverse bail order, not mere cancellation for misuse of liberty. (Paras 20–22, 32)
The Court clarified that cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC (corresponding provision under BNSS) is distinct from interference with an unjustified bail order. While cancellation ordinarily requires misuse of liberty, a superior court may set aside a bail order if it suffers from perversity, ignores material evidence, or is based on irrelevant considerations. The High Court’s approach in granting bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302 IPC and the SC/ST Act was found legally unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An unreasoned or perverse bail order in a grave offence can be reversed by a superior Court even in absence of misuse of liberty by the accused.
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC — Unlawful assembly — Stage of bail — Attribution of specific overt act — Held, once offences relating to unlawful assembly and common object are invoked, prosecution is not required at bail stage to attribute specific injury to each accused — High Court erred in granting bail on ground that individual role was not clearly fixed. (Paras 26–30)
The FIR alleged that six accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted assault using iron rods and sticks. The High Court granted bail on the reasoning that it could not be ascertained whose weapon caused the head injury. The Supreme Court held that such reasoning overlooks the settled principle that under Section 149 IPC, each member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for acts committed in prosecution of the common object. Individual attribution is not a sine qua non at the stage of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC, failure to attribute a specific fatal injury to a particular accused is not a valid ground for grant of bail at the threshold.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Bail in cases involving caste-based violence — Parameters — Gravity of offence and societal impact to be considered — Pendency of prior civil litigation not a mitigating circumstance at bail stage where it furnishes motive. (Paras 11, 25, 27, 31)
The Court observed that the High Court treated pending civil litigation between the parties as a circumstance favouring bail. The Supreme Court held that such litigation could equally constitute motive for the assault. In a case involving allegations of caste-based insults and violence against a Scheduled Caste victim, the gravity of the offence and societal ramifications must be given due weight.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act coupled with murder, pendency of civil disputes cannot be treated as a mitigating factor for bail when it may provide motive for the crime.
Medical Evidence — Stage of bail — Dissection of post-mortem findings impermissible — Multiple injuries including head trauma with cerebral damage — High Court erred in evaluating medical causation as if at final trial. (Paras 28–31)
The post-mortem report recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and head injury leading to cerebral damage. The High Court’s reasoning that only eight injuries were caused by six accused and that nexus between injury and death required scrutiny at trial was held inappropriate at bail stage. Evaluation of medical causation and intention is a matter for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of bail, the Court ought not to undertake a meticulous dissection of medical evidence as if adjudicating guilt; existence of multiple injuries including head trauma is sufficient to weigh against grant of bail in a murder case.
Bail — Gravity of offence — Murder coupled with caste-based abuse — Public confidence in justice system — Held, superficial consideration of bail parameters in grave crimes undermines administration of justice — Bail cancelled. (Paras 21–22, 31–32)
Relying on settled principles, the Court reiterated that in heinous offences affecting societal conscience, courts must exercise caution in granting bail. The High Court’s order was found to have inadequately considered the gravity of the offence, role attributed to accused, and seriousness of allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving heinous offences such as murder with caste-based violence, bail must not be granted on superficial or speculative reasoning; orders ignoring gravity and material evidence are liable to be set aside.
Final Order: Appeal allowed. Impugned bail order set aside. Bail granted to respondents-accused cancelled. Accused directed to surrender within four weeks. Trial directed to be concluded within one year. Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to influence trial. (Paras 32–34)**
No comments:
Post a Comment