Bail Can Be Cancelled By Same Court Which Granted It If There Are Serious Allegations Even If Accused Hasn’t Misused Bail : Supreme Court

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court observed that the same Court which granted bail to an accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations against him although the accused has not misused the bail.

“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.”, the bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The Judgment authored by Justice Hima Kohli observed that while deciding whether a question of grant of bail to an accused who is alleged to have committed a serious offence, the court must consider relevant factors like “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 are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”

It was contended by the informant/appellant that the accused in a murder case was granted bail by the High Court without taking into consideration material evidence placed on record by the prosecution showing the involvement of the accused in the crime.

“The High Court has ignored the fact that the appellant-complainant has stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness-box, the appellant-complainant and three eyewitnesses have specified the roles of the accused/respondents in the entire incident. The High Court has also overlooked the fact that the respondents have previous criminal history details whereof have been furnished by the Counsel for the State of UP.”, the court observed.

“Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has overlooked the period of custody of the respondents-accused for such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the State of UP, before being released on bail, the accused-Waseem had undergone custody for a period of about two years four months, the accused-Nazim for a period of two years eight months, the accused-Aslam for a period of about two years nine months and the accused Abubakar, for a period of two years ten months. In other words, all the accused-respondents have remained in custody for less than three years for such a serious offence of a double murder for which they have been charged.”, the court added.

While examining all the factors collectively, the Court concluded that the respondents/accused did not deserve the concession of bail.

The appeal was allowed.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shreeyash U Lalit, Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Asim Khan, Adv. Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Garausa, Adv. Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay, Adv. Mr. Iduddin, Adv. Mr. Jazib Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Ms. Bushra Ali, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Gufran Ali, Adv. Ms. Chitra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sadik Saleem, Adv. Ms. Preeti Gupta, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AAG Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Alok Kr. Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vartika Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv.


Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Click here to read/download the judgment

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *