2025 (8) TMI 1705 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail cancelled for accused in s.302 IPC; delay in arrest grounds not decisive without demonstrable prejudice; CrPC ss.437(5),439(2)

State of Karnataka Versus Sri Darshan Etc

The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC order of 13.12.2024 and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents. The Court held the HC erred by treating ... Seeking grant of bail - homicide - failure to properly analyse the offence of abduction u/s 362 and 364 IPC - HELD THAT:- The statutory framework governing cancellation of bail is well-settled. Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to direct the re-arrest of an accused who has been released on bail, if such direction is deemed “necessary”. Similarly, Section 437 (5) enables a Magistrate to cancel bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2). These provisions underscore the legislative intent that the power to grant bail is not absolute but is always subject to judicial reconsideration in light of emerging facts or legal infirmities in the original order - Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to direct the re-arrest of an accused who has been released on bail, if such direction is deemed “necessary”. Similarly, Section 437 (5) enables a Magistrate to cancel bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2). These provisions underscore the legislative intent that the power to grant bail is not absolute but is always subject to judicial reconsideration in light of emerging facts or legal infirmities in the original order. Reference made to the decision of this Bench in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2025 (4) TMI 1702 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, the bail granted to the accused therein was cancelled, after a detailed consideration of the facts and the gravity of the offence, namely, child trafficking as well as the legal principles. The Court underscored that while personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, it is not absolute. Liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interest of society. No individual can claim a liberty that endangers the life or liberty of others, as the rational collective cannot tolerate anti-social or anti-collective conduct. Emphasizing that bail jurisprudence is inherently fact-specific, the Court reiterated that each bail application must be decided on its own merits, in light of the well settled on its own merits, in light of the well-settled parameters governing grant or denial of bail. In the present case, the High Court, by the impugned order, enlarged the respondents on bail, primarily relying on a set of factual and legal findings. However, a closer examination of these findings reveals serious infirmities that warranting interference. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail. Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage - HELD THAT:- It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. By the impugned order, the High Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused by delving into the merits of the case and recording findings that fall within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. For instances, in para 24, the High Court observed that the nature of weapons used did not suggest premeditation to assault and murder the deceased, and concluded that the intention to commit murder would have to be determined during trial. In the same paragraph, it further held that since the deceased had voluntarily accompanied certain accused to Bengaluru and had even stopped at a bar en route, the question whether he was abducted or kidnapped also required full-fledged trial consideration - In the present case, the reading of the High Court’s order gives an unmistakable impression that it has pre-judged the outcome of the trial, thereby setting the stage for discharge or acquittal, which, according to this court, is contrary to law. This Court has made it clear that the findings of the High Court, while deciding bail, are to be treated as expressions of opinion only for that purpose and should not, in any manner, prejudice the trial or other proceedings. In the present case, however, the High Court has relied upon irrelevant and premature assessments, and entered into questions best left for the trial, thereby committing a grave jurisdictional error. Appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible - HELD THAT:- In Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal [2020 (12) TMI 1376 - SUPREME COURT], this court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused on perusal of the chargesheet and material evidence found prima facie adverse to the accused. The court also clarified that examination of evidence at the bail stage shall not influence the trial. In the present case, the High Court also proceeded to analyse and discount the credibility of certain prosecution witnesses and forensic material. It observed contradictions in the eyewitness statements concerning the overt acts of the accused - It is a trite law that statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C are not substantive, and their evidentiary value can only be determined after cross examination during trial. Any opinion rendered at the bail stage risks prejudging the outcome of the trial and must be avoided. Thus, the court’s assessment of these aspects amounts to a premature appreciation of the probative value of prosecution evidence. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar [2021 (12) TMI 1500 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that the possibility of the accused absconding or threatening witnesses had a direct bearing on the fairness of the trial. In serious offences, such apprehensions – when reasonably supported by record – must weigh against the grant of bail. In the present case, the High Court failed to engage with the incriminating material collected during investigation, despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegation of conspiracy. The mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution. As repeatedly held by this Court, such factors are not standalone grounds for the grant of bail in heinous offences involving murder. The reasoning adopted by the High Court to justify the grant of bail is, therefore, contrary to settled legal principles. While post-bail good conduct or the period of incarceration may be relevant considerations at the stage of continuing bail, they cannot cure the fundamental defects in an order granting bail which is otherwise perverse, legally untenable, or passed without due consideration of material factors such as the gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. An unsustainable bail order does not become valid with the mere passage of time or the subsequent behaviour of the accused. Judicial scrutiny must focus on whether the discretion to grant bail was exercised judiciously, and in accordance with established principles, at the time of the grant, and not mechanically or on technicalities. Therefore, the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents / accused, deserves to be set aside. The order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to the respondents / accused persons is hereby cancelled - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the High Court's grant of regular bail to multiple accused in a homicide case involving allegations of conspiracy, abduction, torture and murder was legally sustainable. 2. Whether bail granted on asserted medical grounds (medical bail) to an accused who later did not undergo surgery and engaged in public activities amounted to bail obtained by misrepresentation and warranted cancellation. 3. Whether alleged delay or procedural irregularity in furnishing grounds of arrest (oral vs. written communication) independently justified release on bail in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. 4. The permissible scope of evidence-appreciation at the bail stage - i.e., extent to which forensic, electronic and eyewitness material forming a prima facie case may be considered when deciding bail or annulling a prior bail order. 5. Distinction between annulment (setting aside) of a bail order for legal infirmity at the time of grant and cancellation of bail for post-grant misconduct or supervening circumstances, and the standards applicable to each. 6. Whether the accused's social position, influence and conduct post-release create a reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or subversion of the trial, thereby justifying cancellation. 7. Whether the High Court failed to apply its mind to material facts (including gravity of offence, prima facie evidence and risk of interference) making its bail order perverse and liable to be set aside. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legality of High Court's grant of bail in a serious homicide with alleged conspiracy and premeditation Legal framework: Courts must balance personal liberty against societal interest; while unnecessary elaboration of merits is to be avoided, a bail order in grave offences must record prima facie reasons concerning nature of accusation, severity of punishment, strength of evidence and risk of interference with trial. Precedent treatment: The appellate power permits setting aside a bail order that is perverse, arbitrary or founded on irrelevant considerations; cancellation is permissible where there is misuse of liberty or the original order ignored material facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order is criticised for treating procedural lapse and prospect of protracted trial as determinative while neglecting grave incriminating material (forensic, electronic, eyewitness accounts) pointing to premeditation and systematic cover-up. The Court emphasises that mere possibility of delay or incarceration period, without evaluating prima facie evidence and tampering risk, cannot justify bail in heinous offences. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A bail court must consider the totality of circumstances and cannot release accused in heinous cases on speculative grounds of trial delay or procedural lapses without weighing prima facie evidence and risk to trial integrity. Observations about general principles of liberty vs social interest are obiter support. Conclusion: The High Court's grant of bail on the recorded grounds, without adequate engagement with incriminating material, was legally unsustainable. Issue 2 - Medical bail obtained on asserted urgent medical necessity Legal framework: Medical bail requires credible, specific, urgent medical necessity substantiated by expert opinion; court may require constitution of medical board; bail obtained by misrepresentation can be annulled/cancelled. Precedent treatment: Courts have insisted on credible expert opinion and have cancelled bail where medical claims were false or exaggerated. Interpretation and reasoning: The medical record relied upon was vague and did not specify urgency, nature or timing of surgery; no medical board was constituted; post-release conduct (no surgery, public appearances) negated urgency. The conduct suggested misrepresentation to obtain liberty. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Medical bail granted on vague/unsubstantiated medical claims, particularly without independent medical assessment, is vulnerable to cancellation; misrepresentation vitiates bail. Observations on procedural safeguards for medical bail are explanatory. Conclusion: The medical-bail component lacked requisite factual and medical foundation and warranted cancellation. Issue 3 - Procedural lapse in furnishing grounds of arrest: effect on bail entitlement Legal framework: Article 22(1) and statutory provisions require informing arrested person of grounds of arrest 'as soon as may be'; substantial compliance suffices absent demonstrable prejudice; remedy depends on prejudice shown. Precedent treatment: Courts adopt a prejudice-oriented test; mere absence of written grounds does not automatically render arrest unlawful or entitle to bail where no demonstrable prejudice is proved. Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed the accused were aware of allegations, had legal representation and applied for bail promptly; no material showed prejudicial denial of defence. The High Court's reliance on procedural lapse as determinative ignored gravity of charges and prima facie evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delay/absence in written grounds, without demonstrable prejudice, is insufficient per se to justify bail in serious offences. Observations distinguishing contexts where written notice is necessary are explanatory. Conclusion: Procedural lapse, without prejudice, could not by itself sustain the grant of bail in this case. Issue 4 - Extent of evidence-appreciation at bail stage (forensic, electronic, eyewitness material) Legal framework: Bail-stage scrutiny permits prima facie evaluation of material but precludes detailed merit-based appreciation; credibility disputes and detailed forensic analysis belong to trial. Precedent treatment: Appellate courts may set aside bail if the lower court ignored prima facie material; conversely, trial-level credibility assessments should not be conducted at bail stage. Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court both (i) neglected substantial forensic and electronic material forming a prima facie chain (blood/DNA, CDRs, CCTV, confessions under admissible disclosures) and (ii) engaged in premature credibility findings by discounting witness delays and forensic significance. The correct approach is to acknowledge prima facie force of interlocking material without conducting mini-trial; where such material establishes a prima facie chain pointing to conspiracy and murder, bail is to be denied unless cogent reasons exist. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A bail order is liable to be set aside where the bail court fails to consider prima facie incriminating material; conversely, the bail court must avoid in-depth merit adjudication. Explanatory remarks on limits of evidence-appreciation are obiter. Conclusion: The High Court's selective and premature appraisal of evidence rendered its order perverse. Issue 5 - Annulment vs Cancellation of bail: standards applicable Legal framework: Two distinct doctrines - annulment (setting aside a bail order for legal infirmity at time of grant) and cancellation (revocation for post-bail misconduct or fresh circumstances). Annulment requires showing that the original order was perverse, arbitrary or ignored material; cancellation requires supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering, or absconding. Precedent treatment: Appellate courts can annul bail orders that are legally unsupportable; cancellation demands cogent evidence of post-release abuse of liberty. Interpretation and reasoning: The present invoked both limbs: legal infirmity in the High Court's reasoning (annulment) and misrepresentation/abuse of liberty by the medical-bail recipient (cancellation). Both thresholds were found satisfied - the original bail order was perverse for non-application of mind and there were post-release indicia of misuse of liberty. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a bail order is perverse and material considerations were ignored, annulment is appropriate; where bail was obtained by misrepresentation or followed by conduct undermining trial fairness, cancellation is justified. Supporting discussion of balancing liberty and societal interest is obiter explanatory material. Conclusion: Both legal annulment and cancellation principles justified setting aside the impugned bail order. Issue 6 - Influence, public stature and risk of tampering with witnesses Legal framework: Position, influence and resources of an accused are relevant if they create reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, evidence destruction or subversion of trial; liberty may be denied/cancelled on that basis. Precedent treatment: Courts have treated influence and capacity to intimidate or tamper as valid considerations to refuse or cancel bail. Interpretation and reasoning: The accused's public stature, alleged mobilization of support, payments to co-accused to suppress evidence, reported deletions of CCTV footage and conspicuous public conduct post-release constitute concrete indicia of risk to trial integrity. Such factors, considered cumulatively with forensic and digital evidence, justify cancellation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Influence and demonstrated capacity to interfere with investigation/trial are valid grounds for cancellation; remarks on celebrity accountability are explanatory observations. Conclusion: The accused's status and conduct post-release created reasonable apprehension of tampering and supported cancellation of bail. Issue 7 - Non-application of mind by the High Court and perversity of the bail order Legal framework: A bail order must show application of judicial mind to relevant factors; mechanical reliance on single factor or parity and failure to address grave incriminating material renders the order perverse. Precedent treatment: Orders passed without consideration of paramount factors (gravity, prima facie material, tampering risk) have been set aside. Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court's reliance principally on procedural irregularity and trial delay, while discounting scientific, electronic and eyewitness material and failing to require independent medical assessment for medical bail, demonstrates non-application of mind. This procedural and substantive omission renders the order legally vulnerable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Mechanical or callous exercise of discretion in granting bail in serious offences is reviewable and liable to be set aside. Observations about the need to balance liberty and societal safety are supplemental. Conclusion: The bail order suffered from material legal infirmities and was rightly annulled/cancelled; custody was ordered to be restored pending expeditious trial with directions that observations are confined to bail issues and shall not prejudice trial on merits.