Summary
Bail granted to six accused in an incident involving five homicidal deaths was set aside as perverse for overlooking gravity, material in the cross-FIR and relevant antecedents, and for mechanical reliance on parity. Parity requires comparison of individual roles and circumstances, not merely similar weapons. Courts must give reasons for bail even if counsel do not request them; appellate correction of an unlawful grant differs from cancellation for later misconduct.
Issues
- Whether omission of material circumstances and inadequate reasons made the bail orders perverse.
- How parity should be assessed between co-accused.
- Whether counsel’s agreement dispensed with reasons and whether subsequent misconduct was required to set aside the grants.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Required a reasoned, individual exercise of bail discretion addressing material circumstances and rejected mechanical parity. (¶ 20-40)
Held
- The High Court failed to consider the gravity of five homicidal deaths and the cross-FIR’s account of armed presence, planned assault and obstruction of the victims’ escape. Discrepancies about the weapons and injuries required trial consideration and did not justify ignoring that material at the bail stage. These were prima facie bail observations, not determinations of guilt. (¶¶ 20-22, 27-32)
- Parity depends on the accused’s role, position in the incident and relationship to victims, assessed with all relevant circumstances. Merely being armed with a weapon similar to one carried by an accused already on bail is insufficient. (¶¶ 23, 34)
- A judge deciding one accused’s application should not prejudge whether that order can support another accused’s future parity claim. The later court must independently decide whether comparable circumstances justify parity. (¶ 33-34)
- Avoiding a detailed merits trial at the bail stage does not eliminate the duty to give brief, cogent reasons. Counsel’s statement that no further reasoned order is pressed cannot waive that public judicial duty, which protects liberty, victims’ interests and reviewable discretion. Formulaic references to gravity and material do not supply analysis. (¶¶ 24-26, 35-38)
- An appellate challenge tests whether the original bail discretion was arbitrary, illegal or perverse. It differs from cancellation based on later misconduct or supervening events; those later events need not be proved to correct an unjustified grant. Relevant factors include gravity, prima facie involvement, antecedents, flight and interference risks, rather than gravity alone. (¶¶ 33, 39-40)
- The defects affected all six grants, including those made on parity. Full argument before the Supreme Court made remand of the principal accused’s application unnecessary. All six accused had to surrender forthwith. (¶¶ 38, 41-42)
Result
Appeals allowed; bail orders for accused A-6, A-10, A-13, A-15, A-16 and A-17 set aside. All directed to surrender forthwith, with the Sessions Judge to secure compliance; pending applications disposed of.