Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order granting bail to an accused in a murder case on a second application solely on the ground that continued incarceration would hamper his defence strategy, holding that such a ground, as recognised in the High Court's own decision in Prabhat Gangwar, can be applied only in rare cases after evaluating the facts, the accused's conduct and the specific defence need, none of which the High Court examined.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail, on a second application after earlier rejection by the trial court and the High Court, solely on the ground that further incarceration would deprive the accused of an effective defence strategy and the ability to gather evidence.
- Whether, the trial being near conclusion, the Court should decline to interfere with the bail order and merely direct expeditious conclusion of the trial.
Held
- The view in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. that a bail court may set an accused at liberty to enable him to frame his defence and gather evidence cannot be applied mechanically; it may be applied in rare cases, and only after adverting to all relevant facts including the evidence on record and the conduct of the accused during the investigation and the trial. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The High Court failed to evaluate the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the conduct of the accused, and granted bail in a blanket manner. The accused had not even set out what defence strategy or evidence required his liberty, or what special circumstances warranted such indulgence. The order was therefore unsustainable. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- Once a bail order is found to be erroneous it deserves to be set aside; the fact that the trial is at the stage of conclusion is no ground for letting an erroneous order stand. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's bail order dated 12.05.2025 set aside; respondent no. 2 to surrender within four weeks, failing which the prosecuting agency and trial court may take coercive measures to secure his custody; trial court directed to conclude the trial within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, with full cooperation of prosecution and defence.