The top court delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by the appellant - son of the victim
The Supreme Court Tuesday said a court deciding a bail plea cannot “completely divorce” its decision from the material aspects of the case, including the allegations made against the accused and severity of punishment if convicted, and it has to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner.
The court observed this while setting aside an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court which had granted bail to an accused in a case related to murder of a man, who was suffering from 54 per cent permanent physical impairment of both his legs.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said the high court had granted bail to the accused by a “very cryptic and casual” order by losing sight of the material aspects of the case.
“Ultimately, the court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other,” the bench said.
The top court delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by the appellant, who is the son of the victim, challenging the high court's May 2020 order granting bail to the accused.
According to the FIR lodged in the case in December 2019, the victim was attacked by the accused at a bus stand and had died.
The counsel appearing for the appellant told the top court that the victim was elected in 2015 as the deputy sarpanch of a village in Rajasthan and the family of the accused were trying to dissuade him from contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch which was to be held in February 2020. In its judgement, the top court said this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against him.
“Strangely, the state of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against the impugned order,” the bench noted.
It observed while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order “de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail”.
The bench said in such a case, the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum.
“However, the court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused...and a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused,” the bench said.
It said the high court was not right in allowing the bail application filed by the accused.
“Hence the impugned order dated May 7, 2020 is set aside. The appeal is allowed,” the bench said.
It directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)