2019 (8) TMI 1756 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - bail applications rejected on the premises that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may try to influence the witnesses and there is possible danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail to the petitioners - Offence u/s 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act - HELD THAT - Section 439 Cr.P.C. gives an unfettered discretion to the High Courts or Court of Sessions to admit an accused on bail, but that discretion must be exercised judicially. The Court can always refuse bail on any of the grounds, be it possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by the person seeking bail, gravity and seriousness of the offence or otherwise. Admittedly, the petitioners have moved bail applications in succession when the same are being dismissed. It is settled law that the person seeking bail has to clearly demonstrate change in the circumstances, in case his earlier bail application was dismissed - In the case in hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has tried to sketch out the ground for grant of bail mainly on the premise that now there is change in the circumstances. The change, as per the learned Senior Counsel is that now the learned Trial Court has recorded the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses and their testimonies create a doubt qua the veracity of the prosecution case - this Court does not see any change in the circumstances and mere examination of some of the prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be a ground for change in circumstances and ultimately for grant of bail. In a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also different High Courts, culled out the principles for grant of bail. In the case in hand, this Court cannot shut its eyes to gravity and seriousness of the crime, the manner in which the alleged crime was perpetrated, the fact that there is possibility that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence, as most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. This Court also finds that presently the trial is at crucial stage and there is strong possibility that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and they will be in a position to influence and threaten the prosecution witnesses. In the present case and also the material, which has come on record and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present are not the fit cases where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. The petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release in a case involving charges under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Analysis:
1. Grounds for Bail Applications:
The petitioners sought bail claiming innocence and false implication, citing the statements of examined prosecution witnesses and lack of evidence connecting them to the alleged offense. The defense argued that the petitioners were not involved in the crime and should not be kept in detention indefinitely.

2. Prosecution's Argument:
The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offenses, the possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice due to their residency in another state, and the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The prosecution emphasized the evidence, including CCTV footage, suggesting the petitioners' involvement in the crime.

3. Judicial Discretion and Change in Circumstances:
The court acknowledged its discretion in granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but emphasized the need for judicial exercise of this discretion. It noted that successive bail applications require a clear demonstration of changed circumstances, which the defense failed to establish based on the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses alone.

4. Gravity of Offense and Trial Stage:
Considering the gravity of the offenses, the critical stage of the trial, and the potential for tampering with evidence and witness influence, the court found the petitioners unfit for bail. It highlighted the importance of not undermining the trial process by prematurely granting bail.

5. Precedents and Legal Principles:
The court referred to established legal principles for granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the crime, potential tampering with evidence, and the need to maintain trial integrity. It considered relevant judicial pronouncements in its decision-making process.

6. Final Decision:
After a thorough analysis of the facts, legal principles, and arguments presented, the court dismissed the bail applications, deeming them lacking in merit. The court clarified that its decision on the bail applications did not reflect an opinion on the main case's merits, which would be judged separately.

7. Conclusion:
The court's decision to dismiss the bail applications was based on the gravity of the offenses, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the stage of the trial proceedings. The court upheld the importance of maintaining trial integrity and ensuring that bail decisions are made judiciously in line with established legal principles.