9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1937 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - Murder - trial court granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) vide order dated 27.02.2017 inter alia on the grounds -(i) that no other overt act had been attributed to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4); (ii) Based on CCTV footage in drawing an inference that no specific role had been assigned to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4); and (iii) that Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) had been in custody for about sixteen months which was assailed before High Court - HELD THAT - In the present case the trial is at a very crucial stage. The trial court is yet to record the testimony of material witnesses including the complainant as well as all the material witnesses. The trial has commenced and the trial is said to be posted for 04.12.2017. For ensuring the fair trial witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the Appellants are not enlarged on bail. We are conscious of the fact that the Appellants are only under trials and their liberty is also a relevant consideration. But equally important is to consider the impact of their release on bail on the prosecution witnesses and also its impact on society. In order to ensure that during trial the material witnesses depose without fear and justice being done to the society a balance has to be struck. It was repeatedly urged that the High Court misdirected itself in interfering with the discretionary order of Sessions Court granting bail to the Accused and there was absolutely nothing to show that the Appellants are likely to abuse the bail or tamper with evidence. The court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. Of course once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity. While considering the correctness of the order granting bail the approach should be whether the order granting bail to the Accused is vitiated by any serious infirmity in which case the High Court can certainly interfere with the exercise of discretion. The materials available on record prima facie indicating the involvement of the Accused possibility of Accused tampering with witnesses and the gravity of the crime were not kept in view by the Sessions Court. Since the Sessions Court granted bail to the Appellants on irrelevant considerations and the same suffered from serious infirmity the High Court rightly set aside the order of grant of bail to the Accused. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court. 2. Examination of evidence and role of accused. 3. Consideration of relevant factors for granting bail. 4. Judicial discretion and interference by the High Court. Detailed Analysis: Cancellation of Bail Granted by the Sessions Court: The appeals arose from the High Court of Delhi's orders canceling the bail granted to the respondents-accused. The High Court canceled the bail granted to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) and other accused based on the grounds that the Sessions Court ignored relevant materials and granted bail on irrelevant considerations. Examination of Evidence and Role of Accused: The prosecution's case involved an altercation at a club, leading to a violent encounter where the deceased Rupesh and injured Rohit Bansal were attacked. The Sessions Court granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav (A4) based on the lack of specific overt acts attributed to him, discrepancies in CCTV footage, and his prolonged custody. However, the High Court reviewed the CCTV footage and other evidence, noting the presence of Anil Kumar Yadav at the scene and his involvement in the incident, thereby justifying the cancellation of bail. Consideration of Relevant Factors for Granting Bail: The Supreme Court emphasized that the considerations for granting bail include the seriousness of the offense, character of evidence, likelihood of the accused fleeing, impact on prosecution witnesses, and potential for tampering. The Sessions Court's decision to grant bail was based on irrelevant factors such as discrepancies in CCTV footage and the period of incarceration, which were not appropriate grounds for bail in this case. Judicial Discretion and Interference by the High Court: The Supreme Court highlighted that while the Sessions Court has discretion in granting bail, such discretion should be exercised judiciously. The High Court is justified in interfering if the Sessions Court's order suffers from serious infirmities or is based on irrelevant considerations. The High Court's decision to cancel the bail was upheld as it was based on a thorough review of the evidence and relevant factors, ensuring a fair trial and protecting the interests of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, directing the appellants/accused to surrender. The judgment reinforced the principles of judicial discretion in bail matters and the importance of considering relevant factors to ensure a fair trial and justice for the society.
|
