2021 (3) TMI 1226 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - Murder - allegation of heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor - High Court proceeded to grant bail on the purported ground that he had been in custody since 6th October 2020 (that is, about 75 days) without even considering the materials on record - presence of eye witness - HELD HAT - The High Court clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the Respondent Accused not to enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. The High Court completely ignored the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and her five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eye witness is a resident of Ernakulam. Most of the Prosecution witnesses were from Thrissur. There was no reason to suppose that the witnesses would restrict their movements to the limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. It further appears from the impugned order that, in granting bail to the Respondent Accused, the High Court took note of the fact that two other accused persons had not been arrested. The High Court completely ignored the fact that these two accused persons were not named in the FIR. They were charged after investigation with offence under Section 212, of harbouring the Respondent Accused, punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of five years, unlike the Respondent Accused, charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, which entails minimum punishment of imprisonment for life There can be no doubt that the outbreak of the novel COVID-19 pandemic and its spread has been a matter of serious public concern. The virus being highly infectious, precautions to prevent spread of infection to the extent possible are imperative - This Court also directed that a High Powered Committee be constituted by the States and Union Territories to consider release of some prisoners on interim bail or parole during the Pandemic, to prevent overcrowding of prisons. The orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even before investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. The Respondent Accused, it is reiterated, is charged with murder in the presence of an eye witness, and the impugned order granting bail was filed even before the chargesheet was filed. The Chargesheet appears to have been filed on 01.01.2021. Moreover the Respondent Accused had been absconding after the incident. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail to the Respondent Accused by the High Court.
2. Seriousness of the offence and its implications on bail.
3. Consideration of the High Court's reasoning and its alignment with legal principles.
4. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on bail decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail to the Respondent Accused by the High Court:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's order granting bail to the Respondent Accused, who was charged with the murder of a young lady doctor. The High Court granted bail despite the serious nature of the allegations, the presence of an eyewitness, and the opposition from the Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the severity of the crime, the evidence on record, and the potential influence on witnesses.

2. Seriousness of the Offence and Its Implications on Bail:
The Supreme Court highlighted the gravity of the offence, noting that the Respondent Accused was charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, which entails severe punishment. The Court referenced previous judgments, stating that the nature of the offence is a critical consideration in bail decisions, and more heinous crimes generally reduce the likelihood of bail. The High Court's order was criticized for not adequately addressing these factors.

3. Consideration of the High Court's Reasoning and Its Alignment with Legal Principles:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning flawed and lacking in proper application of mind. The High Court's decision to grant bail based on the Respondent Accused's custody duration (75 days) without considering the materials on record was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not discuss the reasons provided by the Sessions Court for denying bail, nor did it consider the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses.

4. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Bail Decisions:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's concern regarding the COVID-19 pandemic but clarified that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2020 were not intended to mandate the release of all under-trial prisoners, especially those charged with serious offences like murder. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court misappreciated the scope of these directions and that the Respondent Accused's release was not justified under the pandemic-related guidelines.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order granting bail, and directed that the Respondent Accused be taken into custody. The Court underscored the need for judicial discretion in bail matters to be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious crimes.

← Previous Next →