2021 (1) TMI 1164 - SCH - Indian Laws

Rejection of anticipatory bail - specious reason of change in circumstances - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge. We refrain from making any further observation, except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to respondent No.2 and affect the trial against him - the impugned judgment and order is set aside. The Investigating Officer is free to take respondent No. 2 into custody forthwith. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail based on successive applications without change in circumstances.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 despite the rejection of two previous applications. The incident occurred on 11.11.2019, and respondent No. 2 made multiple bail applications. The High Court granted bail citing reasons such as the passage of time since the occurrence, the age and health condition of the petitioner, and the statements of witnesses. However, the Investigating Officer's report highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation and incomplete investigation, which the High Court did not consider. The Supreme Court noted that successive bail applications should not be entertained, especially when the accused is evading investigation. The Court criticized the High Court's decision as unjustified and set aside the bail order, allowing the Investigating Officer to take respondent No. 2 into custody immediately.

The Supreme Court emphasized that successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained without substantial changes in circumstances, especially when the accused is not cooperating with the investigation. The Court found the High Court's decision to grant bail without considering the crucial facts from the Investigating Officer's report as unjustifiable. The Court highlighted that the mere passage of time and the health condition of the accused are not sufficient grounds for granting bail when custodial interrogation is necessary and the investigation remains incomplete. The judgment serves as a reminder that bail should not be granted based on flimsy reasons and that the interests of justice and the progress of the trial must be prioritized over the convenience of the accused.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that bail orders are based on substantial grounds. The Court criticized the High Court's decision to grant bail without considering the Investigating Officer's report, which highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation and the incomplete investigation. By setting aside the bail order and allowing the Investigating Officer to take the accused into custody, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that bail should not be granted merely based on the passage of time or the health condition of the accused, especially when the investigation requires further interrogation. The judgment serves as a caution against granting bail on successive applications without valid reasons and emphasizes the need to prioritize the progress of the investigation and the interests of justice.