9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of High Court granting bail to the first respondent in a criminal case involving serious charges. Analysis: The appellant, who is the complainant in the criminal case, challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the first respondent. The incident involved an attack where one victim died and others were injured, leading to the registration of a criminal complaint under various sections of the IPC and other Acts. The first respondent, already involved in multiple cases, applied for bail, which was opposed by the State citing his involvement in other crimes while on bail and threatening witnesses. The Sessions Court rejected the bail application, but the High Court, without providing a reasoned order, granted bail with conditions. The appellant contended that the High Court overlooked the serious nature of the crime and the first respondent's history of violating bail conditions in other cases. The appellant's counsel argued that the first respondent had a history of violating bail conditions in other cases and posed a threat to witnesses and the complainant's safety. The High Court's decision to grant bail was challenged based on the gravity of the offense and the potential danger posed by the first respondent. The State supported the appellant's contentions, emphasizing the need to consider the first respondent's criminal record and the nature of the present offense. Upon reviewing the material on record, it was revealed that the first respondent was involved in multiple cases, including serious offenses under various sections of the IPC and other Acts. The first respondent had a history of violating bail conditions and posed a threat to the investigation and witnesses. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to grant bail was inappropriate given the circumstances. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoned orders, criticized the practice of non-speaking orders by High Courts, and set aside the bail granted to the first respondent, directing him to surrender within a week. In conclusion, the Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the first respondent, highlighting the need for detailed reasoning in judicial orders. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the seriousness of the offense and the individual's criminal history while granting bail. The decision aimed to ensure the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the ongoing investigation, setting a precedent for reasoned judicial orders in similar cases.
|
