Mere Claim Of Innocence Or Undertaking To Participate In Trial Not Sufficient Reasons To Grant Bail In Serious Offences : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court allowing a bail application for an accused charged with an attempt to murder, observed that simply asserting innocence or agreeing to participate in the trial is not a valid reason for granting bail to an accused in serious offences. 

“At any rate, mere claim of innocence or undertaking to participate in the trial or contention of absence of specific allegation of any overt act cannot, in such circumstances, be assigned as reasons for grant of bail in a case of serious nature.,” the Court categorically opined.

The matter was before a Division-Judge Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar. 

In the present case, an FIR was registered against the accused under several provisions of IPC, including Section 307 (Punishments for Attempt to Murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act (Punishment for using arms). The accused was arrested in this regard on August 28, 2022; however, he was granted bail by the High Court on January 12, 2023.

Before the High Court, the accused pleaded innocence and submitted an undertaking for agreeing to participate in the trial. Further, it was argued that no overt act had been alleged against the accused, and an investigation into the case had been completed.

Considering the same, the High Court directed the release of the accused on bail.

However, the Supreme Court, dissatisfied with the same, observed that, in cases involving an attempt to murder, the fact that investigation has been completed cannot be a reason to grant bail.

“When the offences alleged, inter alia, includes one under Section 307, IPC and the accused concerned is so arraigned with the aid of Section 149, IPC, such submissions, reflected in paragraph or the mere factum of completion of investigation by itself, cannot be the reason(s) for grant of bail without due consideration of the relevant aspects.”

In view of the same, the top Court, while setting aside the impugned order, remanded the matter back to the High Court and directed that the same shall be freshly considered in accordance with the law.

Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND v. DHANANJAY GUPTA @ DHANANJAY PRASAD GUPTA, Diary No.- 31796 - 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

Click Here To Read/Download Order