Summary
Over a pending land dispute, the accused were alleged to have driven a tractor over the informant's standing crop at night to take possession, and then to have attacked the informant's family and villagers. The informant's brother was killed and several others seriously injured. Respondent No. 2 was named in the FIR. After the trial court refused bail, the Allahabad High Court granted it under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and other IPC offences, merely recording the submissions and giving no independent reasons. The Supreme Court allowed the informant's appeal. The High Court ignored the nature and gravity of the offences and gave no cogent reasons. Its prima facie acceptance that identification was impossible on a dark night was unwarranted, since the accused were known to the complainant, there was prior enmity, and that was a defence for trial. The bail was cancelled.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could grant bail to an accused named in the FIR for murder and attempt to murder without considering the gravity of the offences and without giving reasons
- Whether a plea that identification was impossible on a dark night could be accepted at the bail stage
Provisions considered
- Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860Where the accused faces trial for such serious offences, cogent reasons are required for granting bail, and their absence vitiated the order. (¶¶ 1, 4, 5)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The injured informant's statement under Section 161 consistently named the accused, supporting the FIR version that the High Court disregarded. (¶¶ 2, 4.1)
Held
- When an accused faces trial for very serious offences such as murder and attempt to murder, the High Court must give cogent reasons for granting bail. Merely narrating the parties' submissions, without independent reasoning or considering the nature, seriousness and gravity of the allegations, makes the order unsustainable. (¶¶ 4, 4.1)
- The submission that identification was impossible on a dark night could not be accepted at this stage. The accused were known to the complainant, there was prior enmity, they came on a tractor, and the injured informant named them in the FIR and in his statement. That plea is a defence to be considered at trial. (¶ 4.1)
Result
Appeal allowed. The order granting bail to respondent No. 2 was set aside and he was directed to surrender forthwith.