Bail discretion and criminal antecedents: parity alone cannot sustain release where relevant risk factors are ignored.

Grant of bail must rest on a judicious assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting material, risk of witness tampering, likelihood of repetition of offence, and the accused's character and antecedents. Where the accused was involved in several serious criminal cases and treated as a history-sheeter, an order that relied mainly on parity without considering these relevant factors was an unsustainable exercise of discretion. The SC held the bail order illegal and set it aside, with the accused not entitled to remain on bail in the present case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the accused's criminal antecedents and the relevant factors governing exercise of discretion under bail jurisdiction, and for placing undue reliance on parity.

Analysis: Grant of bail requires a judicious appraisal of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the supporting material, the possibility of tampering with witnesses, the likelihood of repetition of offence, and the character and antecedents of the accused. The accused was shown to be involved in several serious criminal cases and was treated as a history-sheeter. The bail order, however, proceeded essentially on parity and did not reflect consideration of these material factors. In such circumstances, the discretion to enlarge on bail was exercised in an unsustainable manner.

Conclusion: The High Court's bail order was illegal and liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed and the accused was not entitled to remain on bail in the present case.

---