2017 (5) TMI 1830 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular bail - gruesome murder - Evaluation of evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution's case - HELD THAT - The conclusion arrived to grant bail is presumptive. At the stage of granting bail, a minute examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case was not to be undertaken. In Puran etc.etc. vs. Rambilas Anr.etc.etc. 2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it was held that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. What the Additional Sessions Judge had done, in the order dated 11.9.2000, was to discuss the merits and demerits of the evidence. That was what was deprecated. It was further observed that the High Court has correctly not gone into the merits and demerits of the matter. The High Court has noted that evidence prima facie indicated demand of dowry. The High Court has briefly indicated the evidence on record and what was found at the scene of the offence. The High Court has given very cogent reasons why bail should not have been granted and why this unjustified erroneous order granting bail should be cancelled. In the instant case, the Trial Court had found the respondent and others, prima facie, guilty for committing murder but, strange enough opted to grant bail to the respondent relying upon CCTV footage - This Court is conscious that cancellation of bail is a serious matter. Bail once granted can be cancelled only when there exist very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. It is settled law that parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. However, if the Trial Court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials, bail can be cancelled. The bail can be cancelled even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. Since the Trial Court, prima facie, found the respondent and others to have committed the offence under Section 302/308 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC, grant of bail to the respondent merely because of certain discrepancies, cannot be justified. The petition is allowed and the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. The respondent shall surrender and appear before the Trial Court on 19th June, 2017.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the order granting regular bail to the respondent.
2. Evaluation of evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
3. Consideration of the respondent's involvement and the role of CCTV footage.
4. Parameters for granting and cancelling bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Correctness of the Order Granting Regular Bail:

The primary issue in this case was the challenge to the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.2.2017, wherein the respondent was granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended that the order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the evidence implicating the respondent in a gruesome murder. The court noted that the trial court had found a prima facie case against the respondent and others for the offense under Sections 302/308/34 IPC, yet granted bail based on certain discrepancies and the interpretation of CCTV footage. The High Court emphasized that granting bail in such a serious crime without adequately considering the evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Discrepancies in the Prosecution's Case:

The judgment highlighted various discrepancies pointed out by the defense, such as the non-disclosure of the accused's names in the initial FIR and the absence of corroborative CCTV footage from inside the club. However, the trial court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to meticulously weigh evidence but only to see if there is a prima facie case. The High Court noted that the trial court had acknowledged specific roles assigned to the assailants and the presence of eye-witness statements implicating the respondent, which were sufficient to support the charges despite the discrepancies.

3. Consideration of the Respondent's Involvement and the Role of CCTV Footage:

The respondent's counsel argued that the CCTV footage did not show the respondent's involvement in the crime and that the complainant's initial statement did not name the respondent as an assailant. The High Court examined the CCTV footage and photographs, noting that the footage did not cover the entire incident and that the respondent's presence at the scene was established. The court found the trial court's reliance on the CCTV footage to grant bail presumptive, as it did not capture the whole incident from all angles. The High Court emphasized that the statements of eye-witnesses and the presence of the respondent's car at the scene were critical pieces of evidence that could not be ignored.

4. Parameters for Granting and Cancelling Bail:

The High Court reiterated the legal principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail, noting that the parameters for both are different. Bail can be cancelled if the order granting it is based on irrelevant materials or ignores relevant evidence. The court cited precedents where the Supreme Court held that bail could be cancelled if it was granted in a perverse manner, ignoring the gravity of the offense and the evidence on record. In this case, the High Court found that the trial court had erred in granting bail by not adequately considering the evidence and the seriousness of the crime, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's bail.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the petition, cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, and directed the respondent to surrender before the trial court. The court emphasized that the observations made in the order were solely for determining the sustainability of the bail and would not affect the merits of the case.