TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Saddy, AOR Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore, Adv. JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein is the State of Karnataka, which has preferred the present appeals challenging the common order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru [Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court] in Criminal Petition No.11096 of 2024 and six connected matters, whereby the respondents / Accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 14, were enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 250 of 2024 registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, "IPC"]. 3. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons under sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the basis of a complaint dated 09.06.2024 lodged by one Keval Ram Dorji, Security Officer of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, after the dead body of an unknown male aged approximately 30 to 35 years bearing visible injuries, was discovered by the roadside near the drainage in front of the said Apartment. 4. During the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de fan associates of A2. A2, through his associates including A4, instructed them to abduct the deceased, and bring him to them. Thereafter, they planned to assault and kill him. Subsequently, A3 called A4 and instructed him to find the deceased, abduct him, and bring him to A2's house. A4 conveyed this plan to his friends and A2's fans from Chitradurga - A6 and A7. 6.5. On 07.06.2024, following instructions from A1, A2, and A10, A3 contacted the deceased via WhatsApp and learned that he was near the court. A3 then informed A4, who, along with A6 and A7, went to the court area to search for the deceased. However, they were unsuccessful in locating him. 6.6. On 08.06.2024, A6 traced the residence of the deceased and called A7 and A8 to the location. They waited, preparing to abduct him. After some time, the deceased left his house on a two- wheeler. He was followed by A4, A6, and A7 in A6's auto rickshaw (Reg. No. KA 16 AA 3421). At around 10.00 a.m., they abducted him near Balaji Bar, Chitradurga, and took him to an open area near Bharat Petrol Bunk on the highway outskirts. He was then transferred to an Etios Car (Reg No. KA-11-B-7939) owned by A8, and brought to a shed oper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.12. In the early hours of 09.06.2024, A10, A11, A12, A13, and A14 with the help of A4, A6, A7, A8, A15 and A17, transported the deceased's body in a Scorpio vehicle brought by A11 and dumped it near a stormwater drain in front of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, with the intent to destroy evidence and mislead the investigation. Thereafter, A4, A15, A16 and A17 surrendered at Kamakshipalya Police Station. 7. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained 39 injuries, of which, 13 were bleeding injuries and 17 ribs were fractured. 8. The respondents / accused had earlier approached the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-57) seeking bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 8580/2024, 8770/2024, 9126/2024, 8812/2024, 8799/2024, 8798/2024 and 9120/2024, which were all dismissed. 9. Upon rejection of their bail petitions, the respondents / accused approached the High Court by filing Criminal Petition Nos. 11096/2024, 11176/2024, 11180/2024, 11212/2024, 11282/2024, 11735/2024, and 12912/2024 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [For short, "Cr.P.C"]. A2 also sought interim bail on medical gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to obtain bail. However, the High Court failed to take into consideration the same. (iv) Such approach of the High Court is contrary to the settled principle of law that any party who misleads the court is disentitled to discretionary relief, such as bail. Therefore, the High Court ought to have rejected his criminal petition, instead of granting regular bail to the respondent / A2. (v) Moreover, the High Court's observation that the trial would be prolonged due to the long list of charge-sheet witnesses is premature and speculative and cannot by itself be a ground for granting bail in a case involving grave offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 384, 201 and other serious provisions of the IPC. (vi) In light of the foregoing submissions, it was urged that the impugned order of the High Court enlarging the first respondent on medical grounds, is liable to be set aside. 11.2. Continuing further, the learned senior counsel raised the following contentions, assailing the common order passed by the High Court: (i) The High Court erred in appreciating key legal provisions and crucial material evidence on record. It failed to properly an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... establishes the movement of the accused and the vehicles used for transporting the deceased. A photograph retrieved from the phone of CW.91, a key eyewitness, shows A2 and A6 posing near the deceased post-assault. Call Data Records (CDRs), WhatsApp messages, and mobile location tracking clearly establish planning, the act of abduction, the conduct during the assault, and post-offence cover-up efforts. These digital records are not isolated data points but are interlocking pieces of a broader evidentiary framework pointing toward a criminal conspiracy. (v) The prosecution relies heavily on the testimonies of two key eyewitnesses - CW. 76 (Kiran) and CW. 91 (Puneet) - who were present at the scene of offence and whose presence is independently corroborated. Both were employed at the crime location, a private parking shed, and were well acquainted with the accused persons. Their accounts, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, clearly point out the overt acts of assault, torture, and subsequent disposal of the body. Delay in recording their statements has been credibly explained through verified travel records and other documents. These testimonies are consistent and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, despite claiming serious back pain before the court. Such conduct reflects disregard for judicial process and strengthens the apprehension of witness tampering and coercion. (x) This is not a case of sudden provocation or a spontaneous act of violence. It is a premediated crime motivated by a perceived grievance - that the deceased had allegedly sent obscene messages to A1. A1 and A2 then conspired to eliminate the deceased, using a wide network of associates (A3 to A17). The deceased was abducted under false pretences, forcibly transported to Bengaluru, confined at a shed, and subjected to brutal torture before being killed. The recovery of torture devices (shock torch, lathi, nylon rope) and photographic evidence of the crime stored in phones seized from the accused underscore the cold-blooded nature of the crime. (xi) The High Court has also erred in granting bail on the ground that the trial may be delayed due to the listing of 262 witnesses (as per the charge sheet and first supplementary charge sheet). The case had just been committed to the Sessions Court and had not even reached the stage of charge framing. The High court's assumption of delay at this e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and forensic experts. (iii) The spontaneity and promptness of witness statements are critical to credibility. However, one primary eyewitness, CW. 91, gave his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, 12 days after the incident (incident on 08.06.2024; statement recorded on 20.06.2024). Such inordinate and unexplained delay undermines reliability and suggests afterthought. Other eyewitness statement is similarly plagued by contradictions and delays. (iv) The prosecution's claim of bloodstains on clothes recovered from A2 is contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. The clothes were recovered three days after the incident, during which they were washed and found hanging on a terrace. The panchnama at seizure time makes no mention of bloodstains, rendering the forensic claim suspect. Similar inconsistencies extend to recoveries from other co-accused. (v) CW. 76 and CW. 91's statements, recorded belatedly raise serious doubts about their reliability. No explanation is provided for their initial silence. This aligns with this Court's view in Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. [(2012) 5 SCC 777] that unexplained delay affects probative value. The High Court's cautious appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions are attributable to him. (xiv) The charge sheet and statements do not establish any conspiracy or involvement of Accused Nos. 6 and 7 in the murder. Their role was limited to transporting the deceased, unaware of any plan to assault or eliminate him. (xv) Overall, the FIR, chargesheet, and statements fail to establish a prima facie case of direct involvement by the respondents. Allegations are omnibus and do not specify overt acts attributable to each accused. No weapons or bloodstained clothing linked to respondents have been recovered. Serological and DNA reports are inconclusive. As held in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118], seriousness of offence alone does not justify bail cancellation unless the accused's role is clearly established. (xvi) The law on cancellation of bail is well settled: interference is warranted only if there are supervening circumstances such as (i)misuse of liberty by the accused (ii)attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, or (iii)the order granting bail is perverse or ignores material facts. Mere disagreement with the High Court's reasoning is insufficient. [See: Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty, the cancellation of bail entails a review of the prior decision - either on account of supervening circumstances or because the original order was legally flawed. As laid down in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi [(1978) 2 SCC 411], "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for, is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another". This principle reflects a recognition of the sanctity of liberty once granted, and the requirement of compelling justification for its withdrawal. 17. However, it is equally well recognized that bail granted without due application of mind to relevant factors - such as the gravity of the offence, the strength of the evidence, or the conduct and antecedents of the accused - may be cancelled. Even in the absence of subsequent misconduct, a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or legally untenable is vulnerable to interference. In Dolat Ram v State of Haryana (supra), this Court held that "where a bail order is passed in disregard of material facts or in an arbitrary manner, it can be set aside". 18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence on when bail may be annulle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside. 18.6. In Prakash Kadam and others v. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta and Another [(2011) 6 SCC 189], this Court distinguished between cancellation of bail by the same court and annulment by an appellate / revisional court. It observed: "18. In considering whether to cancel the bail the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. Moreover, the above principle applies when the same court which granted bail is approached for cancelling the bail. It will not apply when the order granting bail is appealed against before an appellate/Revisional Court. 19..... There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail." 18.7. In Neeru Yadav v. State of UP [(2014) 16 SCC 508], this court annulled a bail order where the High Court had ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused and relied mechanically on parity. It held that consideration of irrelevant factors and omission of relevant conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds justifying cancellation of bail, including: * Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice; * Evasion of justice; * Abuse of the concession of bail; * Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice. 18.12. In Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Choudhary [(2014) 10 SCC 754], this Court elaborated the circumstances in which bail granted under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. may be cancelled, including where the accused: * engages in similar criminal activity post-bail; * interferes with or obstructs the investigation; * tampers with evidence or influences witnesses; * intimidates or threatens witnesses; * attempts to abscond or evade judicial process; * becomes unavailable or goes underground; * violates the conditions imposed or evades the control of sureties. 18.13. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (supra), Justice D.Y. Chandrachud explained: "An appellate court is empowered to set aside a bail order if it is found to be based on a misapplication of legal principles or where relevant considerations have been ignored. On the other hand, cancellation of bail typicall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: - "7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being [ Patrick Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 - Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record - particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habitual, it is part of criminological history that a thoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (Emphasis supplied) 56. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 57. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it ille....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. [...]" (Emphasis supplied) 59. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar reported in (2022) 4 SCC 497, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order [Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2021) SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2021) SCC OnLine Pat 2857] of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: - "35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto consideration while exercising power of admitting an accused to bail when offences are of serious nature, and the distinction between cancellation of bail because of supervening circumstances and exercise of jurisdiction in nullifying an order granting bail in an appeal when the bail order is assailed on the ground that the same is perverse or based on irrelevant considerations or founded on nonconsideration of the factors which are relevant. 62. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the High Court should not have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused persons. We are sorry to say but the High Court dealt with all the bail applications in a very callous manner. The outcome of this callous approach on the part of the High Court has ultimately paved way for many accused persons to abscond and thereby put the trial in jeopardy. ... ... 72. Modern political scientist and philosopher, also favours certain limitation on liberty, for safeguarding the societal interest and professes the proportionality between the liberty and restriction, thus laying down exception for the personal liberty, in following words: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - "After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of 'procedure established by law'. The last four words of Art. 21 are the life of that human right. The doctrine of Police Power constitutionally validates punitive processes for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national integrity and the interest of the public generally. Even so, having regard to the solemn issue involved, deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) 76. In no circumstances, the High Court could have released Santosh Sao, Jagveer Baranwal & Manish Jain respectively on bail. 77. In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that we should set aside all the orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused persons and they should be asked to surrender before the trial court. 78. The final word: The true test to ascertain whether discretion has been judiciously exercised or not is to see whether the court ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 INSC 768], it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not personalised (para 50); an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings. 20.2.4. 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 para 29, the High Court noted that there was no prima facie material revealing conspiracy as no witness statements supported the prose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onviction vis-à-vis the offence/s alleged against an accused. 26. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned orders above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the "reasoning" of the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. At the same time, a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail. All that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused." 20.3.2. In Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal [AIR 2021 SC 277], 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. 20.3.3. In Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another [Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022 dated 18.01.2022], the Court examined the chargesheet evidence to hold that prima facie there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age 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. 20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail. 20.4.1. 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. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that: "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..." 20.4.3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t once the accused has been charge-sheeted after investigation, the High Court must consider the material collected during investigation to determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether bail is justified. The Court quashed the bail order, directing the accused to surrender and remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, after examining the evidence on record. 20.4.6. 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. 20.5. Post-bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g have been regarded as heroism. A particular crime changes its colour with efflux of time. The concept of crime in the contextual sense of kidnapping has really undergone a sea change and has really shattered the spine of the orderly society. It is almost nauseating to read almost every day about the criminal activities relating to kidnapping and particularly by people who call themselves experts in the said nature of crime. 32. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars ten months. In other words, all the accused-respondents have remained in custody for less than three years for such a serious offence of a double murder for which they have been charged." 20.5.6. In conclusion, 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. 21. The learned senior counsel for the appellant - State mainly challenged the bail granted to A2, by emph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of evidence, including: deleting CCTV footage, bribing co-accused to falsely surrender, and using police and local influence to derail the investigation. 22.1.5. As this Court warned in Jagan Kishore v. State of A.P. [2003 Crl. LJ 1919], the grant of bail in cases involving custodial torture and extra-judicial execution of an alleged offender erodes public confidence in the rule of law. Thus, the very gravity of the offence justifies cancellation of bail, especially when the liberty granted to A2 is likely to subvert the integrity of the trial process. (b) Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses 22.2. The record reveals concrete acts of interference with the investigation including: * A2's role in orchestrating false surrenders by co-accused (A10, A14); * Payments made to cover up the crime (as per co-accused statements); * Connections with police officials who delayed and diluted the FIR and postmortem procedures; * Deletion of CCTV evidence from A1's residence; * Continued influence over prosecution witnesses, as seen from public appearances after bail. 22.2.1. In Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail. 22.3.3. In Puran v. Rambilas (supra), this Court held that "if it is shown that a party obtained bail by misrepresentation or fraud, or by suppressing material facts, such bail is liable to be cancelled on that ground alone". Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Narendra Nath Sinha [(2019) 10 SCC 528], it was observed that "bail obtained by concealing facts or misleading the court vitiates the order, as it defeats the interest of justice". 22.3.4. Contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 has made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise. 22.3.5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P. (supra), this Court reversed the grant of bail observing that "Where the High Court ignores vital circumstances and material facts, the order becomes indefensible". 22.4.4. In the present case, the High Court, while granting bail, recorded that A2 was not present at the crime scene, but at the same time, accepted that he was in telephonic contact with other accused at crucial times. Similarly, it noted that there was no strong motive, while also acknowledging post hostility and prior enmity with the deceased. These contradictory findings neutralize the basis for bail and indicate that the order was passed without a coherent or legally consistent rationale. 22.4.5. In offences punishable with life imprisonment or death, the bail court must be especially cautious. In Ash Mohammed v. Shiv Raj Singh (supra), this Court emphasized that in serious offences, "the gravity of the offence and its impact on society must weigh heavily with the court, and such cases must be considered with greater care and circumspection". However, in the present case, the High Court's order fails to reflect any such higher scrutiny or cautious approach, despite the seriousness of the charge and the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, A2's immediate return to social events, sharing a stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is a threat to the integrity of the proceedings. 23.8. Notably, celebrities serve as social role models - accountability is greater, not lesser. They, by virtue of their fame and public presence, wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values. Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder, sends wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system. 23.9. Accordingly, A2's antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail, and the order granting bail to him, is based on non-application of mind, perverse, and hence, legally unsustainable. 24. On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, mark....