Summary
Two accused in a 2019 murder case at Dharwad, charged under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, were granted bail by the Karnataka High Court. The court reasoned that the eyewitnesses' identification at the test identification parade might have been influenced by photographs. The Supreme Court had earlier, on 6 January 2022, cancelled bail granted to a co-accused on identical reasoning, holding it to rest on surmises and conjectures and to ignore the gravity of the offence. One of the present bail orders had itself reserved liberty to seek cancellation if the co-accused's bail were cancelled. Following its earlier decision, the Court set aside both bail orders and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which they would be arrested.
Issues
- Whether bail granted by the High Court on the reasoning that eyewitness identification at the test identification parade may have been tainted, without considering the gravity of the offence, was sustainable where identical bail to a co-accused had been cancelled
Provisions considered
- Sections 120B, 201 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The gravity of these offences, which the High Court ignored, together with the eyewitness identification, required cancellation of bail. (¶¶ 1, 4, 6)
- Section 27(3), Arms Act, 1959This was one of the offences charged in the case in which bail was cancelled. (¶¶ 1, 6)
Held
- The High Court's reasoning, that the police might have shown the eyewitnesses photographs of the accused before the test identification parade, rested on surmises and conjectures and in effect acquitted the accused at the bail stage. The accused had been identified at the parade by two eyewitnesses, and the gravity of the offence was not considered at all. (¶ 4)
- Since the grounds on which the respondents were granted bail were the same as those for the co-accused, whose bail the Supreme Court had already cancelled, and one bail order itself reserved liberty to seek cancellation in that event, both bail orders had to be set aside. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Result
Appeals allowed. The bail orders were set aside, and the accused were directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which they are to be arrested on non-bailable warrants. The trial is to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.