High Court sets aside bail order for accused in serious crime; emphasizes prima facie involvement.

The High Court set aside the trial court's order granting bail to the respondent accused in a case under sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 Arms Act. The court emphasized the respondent's prima facie involvement in the crime based on his injuries and the complainant's statements. The High Court directed the respondent to surrender within one week, highlighting the seriousness of the offense and the need for judicious grant of bail in such cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the trial court's order granting bail.
2. Presence and involvement of the respondent at the crime scene.
3. Application of Section 34 IPC.
4. Principles governing the cancellation of bail.
5. Post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the trial court's order granting bail:
The petitions were filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the trial court's order dated 02.03.2015, which granted bail to the respondent accused in a case under sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 Arms Act. The prosecution argued that the trial court relied on incorrect facts and failed to consider the severity of the crime and the evidence against the respondent.

2. Presence and involvement of the respondent at the crime scene:
The prosecution contended that the respondent had sustained bullet injuries, indicating his presence at the crime scene. This was supported by Dr. Bhim Singh's opinion that the injury could be due to a low-velocity bullet that had pierced the deceased's body. The complainant's supplementary statement also alleged that the respondent exhorted the words "Iska Kaam Tamam Kar De," indicating his active involvement.

3. Application of Section 34 IPC:
The respondent was implicated under Section 34 IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The trial court considered the respondent's claim that his role was only after the firing incident and that he was not present at the scene, thus granting him bail. However, the High Court noted that the respondent's presence was established by his injuries and the complainant's statement, indicating his active participation in the crime.

4. Principles governing the cancellation of bail:
The prosecution relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan and State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi, which emphasize that bail should be granted judiciously, considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and supporting evidence. The High Court reiterated that bail should not be granted in a mechanical manner, especially in serious offenses like murder, where the punishment could be life imprisonment or death.

5. Post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances:
The respondent's counsel argued that there were no allegations of the respondent violating bail conditions or influencing witnesses post-bail. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, which states that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for canceling bail. The High Court acknowledged this principle but found that the respondent's presence at the crime scene and active participation warranted the cancellation of bail.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the trial court's order granting bail, emphasizing that the respondent's involvement in the crime was prima facie established by the injuries sustained and the complainant's statements. The court directed the respondent to surrender within one week and allowed the petitions, reinforcing that bail in serious offenses should be granted rarely and judiciously, considering the impact on society and the victim.

---