2017 (3) TMI 1777 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - nature of alleged assault by the accused persons - ground of parity - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as is demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has not been guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He has not kept himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications had been rejected and the matter had travelled to this Court. Once this Court has declined to enlarge the appellants on bail, endevours to project same factual score should not have been allowed. It is absolute impropriety and that impropriety call for axing of the order. That apart, as we find from the narration of allegations from the order of the High Court, it is not a case where the trial court could have entertained a bail application by elaborate dissection of facts and appreciation of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The gravity of the crime should have been taken note of by the learned trial Judge. The factors that have been highlighted by this Court from time to time were required to be adverted to and the accused persons should not have been granted liberty on the grounds that have been thought appropriate by the learned trial Judge. The perversity of approach by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has enlarged the appellants on bail, is totally unacceptable. It is reflective of sanctuary of errors. In such a situation, we are obligated to say that the High Court has performed its legal duty by lancinating the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of bail by Principal Sessions Judge.
2. Denial of bail by High Court of Karnataka.
3. Filing of a third bail application and its acceptance by Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Cancellation of bail by High Court.
5. Appeal against the High Court's cancellation of bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Bail by Principal Sessions Judge:
The appellants, accused in a sessions case for serious offences under the IPC, initially sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Their application was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, who considered the allegations, the nature of injuries, and other relevant aspects.

2. Denial of Bail by High Court of Karnataka:
Following the dismissal, the appellants approached the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench. The High Court, considering the deadly weapons used, the injuries sustained by the deceased, and specific overt acts alleged, also rejected the bail application.

3. Filing of a Third Bail Application and Its Acceptance by Additional Sessions Judge:
The appellants filed a second bail application before the Principal Sessions Judge after the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed. This was again dismissed. Subsequently, a third application was filed and taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur. The Judge, treating it as a fresh application, referred to previous court pronouncements and delays in the trial, ultimately granting bail to the appellants.

4. Cancellation of Bail by High Court:
The informant, aggrieved by the grant of bail, moved the High Court seeking its cancellation. The High Court, after considering the allegations, the nature of the crime, and previous rejections of bail by higher courts, found the trial Judge's decision to grant bail perverse and based on irrelevant aspects. The High Court thus cancelled the bail.

5. Appeal Against the High Court's Cancellation of Bail:
The appellants appealed against the High Court's decision. They argued that they had not violated bail conditions or tampered with evidence. The State countered, emphasizing that the trial Judge should not have granted bail after the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar plea. The Supreme Court found that the trial Judge was swayed by irrelevant factors and failed to consider the gravity of the crime and previous rejections by higher courts. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's cancellation of bail, emphasizing that bail decisions must consider the nature of the crime, evidence, and potential threats to justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender to custody. It clarified that the observations made were limited to the bail issue and should not influence the trial's outcome.