2015 (9) TMI 1430 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - nature of offence - whether the High Court have enlarged bail on the foundation of parity? - Held that - It is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and therefore the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. If the respondent no.2 is at large he shall be taken into custody forthwith; and if he is still in custody because of certain other cases he shall not be admitted to bail in connection with the present case. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to other cases and simultaneously we also clearly state that our observations in this case are only meant for purpose of setting aside the order granting bail and would have no impact or effect during the trial.

Issues Involved:
1. Legal sustainability of the High Court's order granting bail.
2. Consideration of criminal antecedents of the accused.
3. The doctrine of parity in granting bail.
4. The discretionary power of the court in granting bail.
5. The concept of liberty and its curtailment by law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal Sustainability of the High Court's Order Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's order granting bail to the accused (respondent no.2) and concluded that the High Court had failed to consider relevant material factors, rendering its decision perverse and indefensible. The apex court emphasized that the appeal was not for cancellation of bail due to supervening circumstances but questioned the legal pregnability of the High Court's order under Section 439 CrPC. The Court cited precedents [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338, Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 584, and Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanah Gupta] to underline the distinction between cancellation of bail and the legal sustainability of an order granting bail.

2. Consideration of Criminal Antecedents of the Accused:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had ignored the criminal history of the accused, which included involvement in multiple heinous offenses. The appellant and the State highlighted the accused's criminal antecedents, which the High Court failed to consider. The Supreme Court referred to an independent chart provided by the State listing seven pending cases against the accused, underscoring his status as a "history-sheeter." The Court concluded that the High Court should not have enlarged the accused on bail given his criminal history.

3. The Doctrine of Parity in Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for granting bail solely based on the doctrine of parity, which was deemed inappropriate given the accused's criminal background. The High Court had granted bail to the accused on the grounds that bail had been granted to other similarly placed accused persons. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the nature of the crimes and the accused's involvement in multiple serious offenses warranted a more cautious approach.

4. The Discretionary Power of the Court in Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the grant of bail involves the exercise of the court's discretionary power, which must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, which emphasized the need for a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, consideration of the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the potential threat to witnesses.

5. The Concept of Liberty and Its Curtailment by Law:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of individual liberty but stressed that it must be balanced with societal interests. The Court quoted Edmund Burke and E. Barrett Prettyman to highlight that liberty is inherently a composite of restraints and that an individual's liberty cannot be a threat to society. The Court emphasized that crimes affect the peaceful life of society and that the judiciary must be vigilant in ensuring that bail is granted judiciously.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail to the accused. The Court directed that if the accused was at large, he should be taken into custody forthwith, and if he was already in custody due to other cases, he should not be admitted to bail in connection with the present case. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of setting aside the bail order and would not affect the trial of the case.

← Previous Next →