Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail to three accused in a murder case where the FIR specifically alleged that all the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set him on fire, holding that the High Court had acted cryptically and mechanically without considering the record, including a chargesheet stating the case was found true against all accused.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused in a case under Section 302 IPC where the FIR made specific allegations against all of them of setting the deceased on fire with intent to kill.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 302 was added after the victim died of burn injuries. The gravity of a murder charge, with specific allegations against each accused of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased ablaze, weighed decisively against anticipatory bail. (¶¶ 4, 13)
Held
- Applying the factors in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 (nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case), the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be guided by those considerations. (¶ 12)
- The High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail in a cryptic and mechanical manner, ignoring specific FIR averments that all accused set the deceased on fire with intent to kill and a chargesheet recording that the case was found true against all accused named in the FIR; anticipatory bail was not warranted on these facts. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Non-bailable warrants issued only to secure the appearance of respondents who were evading the proceedings did not require continued custody; the respondent produced in custody was directed to be released. (¶¶ 8, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 25.07.2023 granting anticipatory bail set aside. Respondents 2 to 4 directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, with liberty to apply for regular bail, to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the judgment's observations.