Summary
The Court set aside bail granted to three accused in an alleged unlawful-assembly killing. The High Court had merely recited submissions and failed to assess the gravity of the alleged assault, medical evidence and attributed participation. Absence of subsequent misuse of liberty did not cure an unjustified original bail order. The fact that the accused allegedly carried lathis was insufficient in the circumstances, given the common-object charges. All three were directed to surrender forthwith.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s substantially unreasoned orders granting bail in a serious unlawful-assembly prosecution could stand.
- Whether absence of later misconduct or the alleged use of lathis prevented appellate interference with the grants.
Provisions considered
- Section 439(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Bail discretion requires reasons and consideration of material factors, including the nature and gravity of the accusation and the prima facie case. (¶¶ 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860In the circumstances of the alleged common-object assault, carrying lathis rather than sharp weapons did not by itself justify bail for alleged participating members of the assembly. (¶¶ 10, 13, 14)
Held
- Detailed determination of guilt is inappropriate at the bail stage, but the court must consider the prima facie material, gravity of the accusation, possible punishment and risks to justice. Simply reciting counsel’s submissions and announcing satisfaction fails to demonstrate a judicial exercise of discretion. (¶¶ 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2)
- The High Court failed to address the alleged planned group assault, twenty-six injuries on the deceased, eleven on the injured witness, and the accused’s alleged participation. In that setting, the contention that these accused carried lathis did not justify release in disregard of the Section 149 charges. These were bail-stage assessments. (¶¶ 2, 10, 13, 14)
- Review of a perverse, illegal or unjustified original grant differs from cancellation for supervening misconduct. The complainant had challenged the grants promptly; two years without alleged misuse of bail did not insulate the defective orders from appellate review. (¶¶ 11.2, 15, 16, 16.1)
- The three High Court bail orders concerning Kamlesh, Arif and Bhojraj Singh were set aside. Each accused was directed to surrender forthwith, and the Sessions Judge was to secure immediate compliance. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeals allowed; all three bail orders set aside and the accused directed to surrender forthwith.