Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused who had been summoned and arrested under Section 319 CrPC in a murder trial, and declined the State's plea to cancel anticipatory bail granted to two other accused summoned in the same way, stating the standard for bail to a person added as accused under Section 319.
Issues
- What standard governs bail to a person added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC on the strength of trial evidence?
- Whether the accused summoned under Section 319 and in custody should be released on bail, and whether the anticipatory bail granted to two co-accused should be cancelled.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court, on the eyewitness evidence, summoned three of six persons dropped by the police to face trial for murder; that order was not challenged. The Court stated the bail standard that applies when a person so added is arrested and seeks bail. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 14)
- Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences for which the case was registered; the Court made no finding on them and confined its observations to the bail question. (¶¶ 4, 21)
Held
- When a person added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is arrested and seeks bail, the court must look for strong and cogent evidence of complicity rather than a mere probability. The test is more than the prima facie case required for framing a charge but short of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The court should weigh the nature of the offence, the quality of the evidence against the new accused, and the likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. (¶ 14)
- On the facts, the appellant summoned under Section 319 was directed to be released on bail on conditions to be fixed by the trial court. No case was made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail of the two co-accused, who had been appearing before the trial court on all dates. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18)
- The observations were confined to the bail and cancellation questions, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law uninfluenced by them. (¶¶ 16, 21)
Result
Accused's appeal allowed and bail granted on terms to be fixed by the trial court; State's appeal against anticipatory bail dismissed; all three accused to appear regularly and cooperate in expeditious disposal of the trial.