Summary
On the complainant's appeal, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order granting regular bail to the accused, a celebrated wrestler, in a case of abduction and fatal assault at Chhatrasal Stadium, holding that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the accused's abscondence during investigation, his societal influence and the complaints by witnesses of threats, and restated the principles distinguishing an appeal against a bail order from an application for cancellation of bail.
Issues
- On what grounds a superior court may set aside an order granting bail, and how such an appeal differs from an application for cancellation of bail.
- Whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting regular bail to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 307, 364 and other provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act, 1959.
Provisions considered
- Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The accused had been released on regular bail by the High Court under this provision. The Court examined whether that discretion was exercised in accordance with the parameters laid down for bail in serious offences and found that the order ignored relevant factors. (¶¶ 3, 20)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, the Court recalled that personal liberty may be curtailed by procedure established by law; detention of a person accused of non-bailable offences pending trial is not violative of Article 21, though bail may be granted where no prima facie case is shown or where the facts otherwise warrant release. (¶¶ 2, 4)
Held
- Bail is a discretionary remedy requiring a context-sensitive balance between the accused's liberty and presumption of innocence on one side and the gravity of the offence, its societal implications and the integrity of the investigation and trial on the other; the discretion must be informed by the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the risk of flight or tampering, and the need for an unobstructed trial. (¶ 2)
- Setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are distinct: the former tests the correctness of the order itself, the latter the conduct of the accused or supervening circumstances after the grant. The conduct of the accused after bail is not relevant in an appeal against the grant and must be raised in a cancellation application. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
- Principles summarised: an appeal against grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation; the court must not undertake a threadbare analysis of the evidence; a bail order must reflect application of mind to the relevant factors; a superior court may interfere on grounds of perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law or failure to consider relevant factors including the gravity of the offence and its impact; and such an appeal must not be used as a retaliatory measure. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The High Court erred in granting bail because, while the period of custody and recording of key witnesses were relevant, it did not consider the grievous nature of the crime, the possibility of the accused influencing the trial, or his conduct during investigation, when he absconded, non-bailable warrants had to be issued and the police announced a cash reward for information about him. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The allegations, of abduction, violent assault with dangerous weapons resulting in death, recovery of a loaded firearm and blood-stained weapons, and a video of the incident found to be untampered, are shocking and serious; the influence an accused wields in society is a relevant consideration, and where the accused is a celebrated sportsperson and witnesses have lodged written complaints of threats, it cannot be said he would have no domineering influence over witnesses or the trial. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The State's submission that prosecution witnesses turned hostile around the periods of the accused's temporary bail, with 28 of 35 examined witnesses hostile, was not affirmed but underscored the possibility of interference with the trial; the observations are confined to the bail order and are not remarks on the merits. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order granting bail set aside; accused to surrender before the trial court within one week, with liberty to apply afresh for bail on a change in circumstances.