Gravity And Nature Of Offences Are Relevant Considerations While Considering Bail Applications, Reiterates Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the accused are relevant considerations while considering his bail application.

In this case, the accused persons allegedly attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. Taking note of this, the Sessions Court rejected their bail application. The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application by making the following observation: "The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail."

The High Court has not adverted to the gravity and nature of the offences at all. Even no reasons are assigned by the High Court except observing in one paragraph..The aforesaid can hardly be said to be assigning the reasons.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

While granting bail, the relevant considerations are

(i) nature of seriousness of the offence;

(ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;

(iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; 

(v) likelihood of his tampering

The court further noted that when the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the IPC also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant.

"From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s), it appears that the High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant facts and/or considerations while granting bail. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail mechanically and on applying the wrong facts which even as per the accused were not their cases. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) releasing respective respondents No.2 on bail are unsustainable both on facts as well as on law", the bench said while setting aside the High Court judgment.

The same bench, in another judgment, allowing an appeal against the Patna High Court order granting bail to murder accused, made similar observations. In this case, the younger brother of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R against the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. The High Court granted bail to the accused.

"11. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly considering the fact that respondent No.2 is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged.", the bench said while setting aside the High Court order

Click here to Read/Download Judgment (Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of UP)