The Supreme Court emphasized the protection of individual liberty under the Constitution, stating that courts should not interfere with it lightly. It overturned a January order from the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had canceled bail for an accused in an attempt-to-murder case due to lack of evidence supporting such action. The bench criticized the high court for not providing any substantial reasons for the bail cancellation, highlighting the absence of allegations regarding witness tampering or trial delays. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the bail, underscoring the need for valid grounds before revoking it.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the liberty of an individual is a precious right under the Constitution and that courts must be cautious in not interfering with such liberty lightly.
A bench composed of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan overturned a January 3 decision by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had revoked bail granted to an accused in an attempt-to-murder case, citing a lack of prima facie material indicating the necessity of depriving him of his liberty.
“It is sufficient to note that the liberty of an individual is a valuable right under the Constitution, and courts must be careful not to interfere with that liberty without strong justification. We are convinced that the high court had no valid grounds to cancel the bail in the absence of prima facie material suggesting that the appellant’s behavior after the bail was granted warranted the revocation of his liberty,” the court stated.
The bench pointed out that there were no allegations of witness tampering, threats, or undue influence exerted on witnesses.
Additionally, it observed that there was a lack of evidence indicating that dilatory tactics were used to prolong the trial.
“The high court failed to identify any specific actions by the appellant following the granting of bail that could justify a belief that he violated any terms or conditions of his bail, thereby necessitating its revocation or cancellation,” the bench remarked in its February 20 ruling.
The Supreme Court referenced its 2024 ruling in the case of Ajwar versus Waseem, which was cited by the high court.
According to the 2024 ruling, when considering an application for cancellation or revocation of bail, courts must assess whether the accused has misused their liberty, delayed the trial, influenced or threatened witnesses, tampered with evidence, or if any new circumstances have arisen since the granting of bail that require reconsideration.
It also stated that bail orders could be revised if deemed perverse or illegal, particularly if a court’s conscience is shocked or irrelevant factors were taken into account.
“Even though the high court referenced pertinent sections from the cited (2024) ruling, it appeared to overlook crucial considerations in this case. Therefore, the issue of concluding that the bail should be cancelled was unfounded,” it asserted.
The top court noted that instead of appropriately assessing the bail issue, the high court effectively conducted a mini-trial.
“Given this situation, we believe that the high court was entirely mistaken and unjustified in canceling the appellant’s bail,” the court concluded. The bench quashed the high court’s decision and reinstated the August 28, 2024 order of the sessions court granting bail to the accused.
The bench further instructed that the accused must appear before the trial court on the scheduled dates unless granted an exemption. Should he fail to appear without valid reason or breach any bail conditions, the trial court has the authority to revoke bail.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)