Summary
The Court set aside refusal of bail and continued the appellant on the bail previously granted by it. An accused need not first seek quashing of the FIR or chargesheet to argue absence of a prima facie case in bail proceedings. Completed custodial interrogation, documentary evidence held by investigators and filing of the chargesheet supported relief, without deciding the merits of the offences.
Issues
- Whether a prior challenge seeking quashing is required before an accused can contest the prima facie case at the bail stage.
- Whether continued bail was justified after investigation and on the available record.
Held
- Bail consideration includes the prima facie case, risks of witness influence or evidence tampering, flight risk and seriousness of the alleged offence. Requiring a prior quashing application before entertaining the accused’s prima facie submissions was perverse. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- A detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage should be avoided. The Court declined to decide the applicability of observations in the earlier judgment or finally assess the Section 194 IPC accusation, leaving the parties’ merits positions unaffected. (¶¶ 22, 30, 31)
- The factors supporting earlier interim bail remained: the appellant was a woman, the allegations concerned old events and documents, and custodial interrogation had been completed. She had not been called for investigation after interim release; most evidence was documentary and already with investigators, and the chargesheet had been filed. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- The High Court’s refusal was set aside and the appellant continued on the earlier bail terms. Her passport was to remain with the Sessions Court; she must stay away from and not influence witnesses. The prosecution could approach the Supreme Court directly for modification if she attempted interference. (¶¶ 38, 40, 41, 42)
- Neither the High Court’s observations nor those in this order were to influence the trial court when deciding the case at trial. (¶ 43)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order quashed and appellant continued on the bail granted on 2 September 2022, with passport retention and noninterference conditions. Trial merits unaffected; pending applications disposed of.