Summary
The CBI challenged High Court orders granting bail to accused charged with a concerted post-election attack on a complainant's house in West Bengal in which his wife was disrobed and nearly sexually assaulted. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail: the allegations were grave enough to shake the conscience of the Court, the local police had refused to register the FIR, which was registered by the CBI only on the High Court's direction, and the accused's non-cooperation had stalled the trial, so no fair trial was possible while they remained at liberty.
Issues
- On what considerations bail already granted by the High Court may be cancelled.
- Whether the gravity of the allegations of politically motivated post-poll violence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing a fair trial warranted cancellation of their bail.
Held
- The considerations for grant of bail and for its cancellation are entirely different. Bail once granted should normally not be interfered with unless circumstances show that it was procured by fraud or misrepresentation, that the allegations are so grave that they have an adverse impact on society and shake the conscience of the Court, that release is likely to create a sense of fear and terror in society, or that the accused on bail may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. (¶ 13)
- The allegations of a concerted armed attack by 40 to 50 persons on the complainant's house on the day of the election results, vandalising and looting it, disrobing his wife and attempting to assault her sexually, were so grave as to shake the conscience of the Court. The refusal of the local police to register the complaint and their advice to the complainant to leave the village lent credence to the apprehension about the clout of the accused over the locality and the police; the FIR could be registered only after the High Court directed a CBI investigation. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18)
- On the contents of the FIR there was hardly any scope to distinguish the respondents from the accused to whom the specific act of disrobing was attributed; the attack was launched to wreak vengeance on a supporter of the opposite political party and to terrorise such supporters, which the Court described as an attack on the roots of democracy. (¶ 17)
- Where the charge-sheet was filed in 2022 and the trial had not progressed because of non-cooperation by the accused, which was established from the record, there was no possibility of a fair and impartial trial if the accused remained on bail. On both counts, the nature and gravity of the offence and the imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial, the bail had to be cancelled. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The accused were directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which the trial court was to adopt coercive measures; the trial court was to expedite the trial and endeavour to conclude it within six months; any stay on the trial by any higher forum was deemed vacated; the State's Home Secretary and Director General of Police were to ensure protection of the complainant and material witnesses, with liberty to report violations to the Supreme Court; the observations were not to prejudice the trial. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court orders dated 24 January 2023 and 13 April 2023 reversed and the bail cancelled; accused to surrender within two weeks; trial to be concluded within six months; witness protection directed; pending applications disposed of.