Summary
The complainant challenged anticipatory bail and regular bail granted to two accused in an alleged group assault and murder. The Court held that the High Court had overlooked eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical and forensic material indicating their participation. A superior court may set aside a legally untenable bail order for ignoring relevant material without requiring subsequent misconduct alone. Both bail orders were set aside and surrender directed within two weeks; the observations were confined to bail.
Issues
- Whether the bail orders ignored material supporting a prima facie case.
- Whether interference required supervening circumstances after the grant of bail.
Held
- Cancellation for subsequent events and interference with an originally untenable grant involve distinct considerations. Although cancellation requires significant scrutiny, a superior court may revoke bail where the granting court ignored relevant evidence, the gravity of the offence or other material considerations, or relied on irrelevant factors. (¶ 21-26)
- Bail discretion requires consideration of the prima facie case, nature and gravity of the accusation, potential punishment, flight risk, likelihood of repetition, witness interference and danger to the course of justice. Detailed findings prejudging the trial should be avoided, but reasons showing proper application of these considerations are necessary. (¶¶ 24-26, 32-33)
- The eyewitness statements indicated participation by both respondents, including alleged instigation by accused 6 and assault with a wooden stick by accused 8. Medical and forensic material supported the accounts. The High Court’s premise that no relevant overt acts or prima facie material existed failed to address the record. These were findings for the bail proceedings alone. (¶¶ 27-33, 36)
- The cancellation of bail granted to other accused, including the alleged principal conspirator, was an additional relevant circumstance. The impugned orders could not stand on the material and principles applicable here. (¶ 34-35)
Result
Appeals allowed. The orders granting bail to accused 6 and 8 were set aside. They were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which police custody was to be secured. No opinion on the merits of the criminal case was expressed.