Summary
The Supreme Court declined to disturb the High Court’s reasoned grant of bail to an accused charged with his wife’s murder. Seriousness of the charge alone did not make the discretionary order perverse where relevant circumstances and prosecution safeguards had been considered. Expert reports supporting the alleged staged-accident theory remained to be proved and tested at trial. The Court neither accepted the accident defence nor acquitted the accused; liberty to seek cancellation for threats or breach of bail conditions remained.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s grant of bail was perverse or ignored relevant factors.
- How the disputed expert reports should be treated at the bail stage.
- Whether safeguards preserved the prosecution’s ability to seek cancellation.
Held
- Review concerned the propriety of the bail order, not final guilt. The High Court had considered relevant circumstances and given reasons; gravity of the murder charge alone did not justify setting aside bail where the other circumstances supported the discretionary order. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The evidentiary worth of the expert reports, including a medical opinion based on photographs rather than examination of the body, was for trial after proof by their makers and cross-examination. The Court declined a detailed evidentiary determination at the bail stage rather than declaring those reports worthless. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- The prosecution retained the burden of proving murder and the accused’s responsibility beyond reasonable doubt. His accident explanation was a factor to be examined in that process, not a defence conclusively accepted by maintaining bail. (¶ 13)
- The High Court imposed conditions against interference with evidence or witnesses, required appearance and passport surrender, and preserved liberty to seek cancellation upon threats or breach. Those safeguards were relevant to the Court’s refusal to interfere. (¶¶ 3, 15, 16)
Result
Complainant’s and CBI’s appeals dismissed; High Court’s conditional grant of bail left in force, with existing liberty to seek cancellation for threats or breach. Trial merits left open.