Summary
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused facing trial for murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, relying on bail granted to two co-accused. The complainant appealed. The Supreme Court set the bail order aside. The High Court had not considered the seriousness of the offence or the material in the charge-sheet and gave no reasons relevant to bail. It also ignored that the accused's Section 482 petition to quash the case, and his special leave petition against its dismissal, had failed, and that he was arrested only in 2021 after a non-bailable warrant. It applied parity without comparing his role with that of the co-accused. He was directed to surrender within two weeks, and the trial court was to decide the case on its own evidence, uninfluenced by these observations.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly granted bail to an accused charged under Sections 302 and 120B IPC without considering the gravity of the offence, the charge-sheet material and the accused's conduct.
- Whether parity with bailed co-accused could be applied without comparing the roles attributed to each.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The seriousness of the murder and conspiracy charges was a central consideration that the High Court failed to weigh in granting bail. (¶ 2)
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A bail order in a grave offence must give reasons relevant to bail and consider the material against the accused. One that ignores these is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
Held
- The High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offence or the charge-sheet material, and it gave no cogent reasons relevant to granting bail on a charge of murder. (¶ 2)
- Relevant circumstances were ignored: the accused's failed Section 482 petition and the dismissal of his special leave petition against it, the non-bailable warrant issued against him, and his arrest only in 2021. (¶ 2.1)
- Parity with co-accused who had been granted bail could not be applied without examining the role attributed to each of them compared with the accused. (¶ 2.2)
Result
Appeal allowed. The order granting bail was set aside, and the accused was to surrender within two weeks, failing which a non-bailable warrant would issue. The trial was to proceed on its merits, uninfluenced by these observations.