1987 (4) TMI 499 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail by High Court, Transfer of trial, Recall of bail order, Allegations of tampering with evidence

Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of bail by High Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the High Court's order granting bail to respondent No. 1, who was facing trial for murder. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed respondent No. 1 to be taken into custody immediately. The reasons for this decision were articulated in the order due to the multiple bail applications and the judicial process followed.

Issue 2: Transfer of trial
Various applications were filed for the transfer of the trial from one court to another. The High Court refused to transfer the case and also declined to cancel the bail granted to one of the accused. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings and observed that adjournments by the accused delayed the trial process, contrary to the directions given by the court.

Issue 3: Recall of bail order
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court judge for recalling his own order related to the bail application of respondent No. 1. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and the convention of placing subsequent bail applications before the same judge to avoid abuse of the legal process and conflicting orders.

Issue 4: Allegations of tampering with evidence
Serious allegations of tampering with evidence were raised by eyewitnesses against the accused persons. The Court noted that the judge failed to adequately consider these allegations, which are crucial in determining whether bail should be granted. The duty of the court is to ensure that the accused, if released on bail, will not tamper with evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found serious errors in the High Court's decision to grant bail to respondent No. 1. Considering the gravity of the offense, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the allegations of tampering with evidence, the Court concluded that respondent No. 1 should not have been granted bail. The Court directed that respondent No. 1 be taken into custody immediately, emphasizing the importance of a fair and expeditious trial process.