TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 course of investigation, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 were arreste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereafter, 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 operated by Intact Auto Packers India Pvt. Ltd., RR Nagar, allegedly under A13's control. 6.7. Thereafter, the accused assembled at Stony ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 grounds, which was granted on 15.10.2024 for six weeks based on a medical report submitted by the prison authorities. 10. Ultimately, the High Court allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty 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 analyse the offence of abduction under Sections 362 and 364 IPC. The act of forcibly confining the deceased in a vehicle and transporting him against his will to Bengaluru clearly falls within the ambit of Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (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 cogent, yet the High Court has unjustifiably discarded them. (vi) In Addition to these two direct witnesses, other shed workers - CW.69, CW.77, CW.78 and CW.79 - have confirmed the entry and exit of the accused and their vehicles. Given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 early stage is speculative and unwarranted. Moreover, in comparable murder cases, the same learned Judge has denied bail when presented with similar prima facie material. This deviation, without sufficient explanation, reveals a lack of consistency in judicial approach. (xii) In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 approach to such evidence is justified. (vi) Statements of CW. 7 and CW. 8 (parents of the deceased) and CW. 122 contradict the prosecutions' abduction claim, indicating the deceased voluntarily accompanied co-accused to a location and even paid the bill himself. The reliance on CCTV footage and photographs to allege abduction rema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. 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) 1 SCC 349]. (xvii) The respondents have not misused their liberty since release. They have cooperated with the investigation and have not attempted to influence witnesses. Allegations of presence at public events or associations do not amount to trial interference. (xviii) The respondents are entitled to constitutional protections under Article 21. Celebrity status does not warrant different bail st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 annulled or cancelled. Two distinct categories have emerged in this regard: (A) Annulment of Bail due to legal infirmity in the order; and (B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e., revocation of bail due to post-grant misconduct or supervening circumstances. (A) Annulment of bail orders 18.1. This refers to the appellate or revisional power to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used 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 considerations renders the order perverse. As the court noted: "15. .... It is clear as a cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * 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 typically arises from post-bail conduct or supervening circumstances." 18.14. Finally, in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and another [Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9655 of 2021) dated 20.05.2022], this Court reaffirmed that bail already granted should not be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner. Only cogent and overwhelming circumstances, which threaten the fairness of the trial or the interest of justice, would warrant such interference. 18.15. Thus, it is clear that while cancellation of bail is a serious matter involving deprivation of personal liberty, the law does permit annulment of a bail order that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (Emphasis supplied) 54. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidering 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 illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: "9. [...] It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused." (Emphasis supplied) 60. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 501, Her Ladyship B.V. Nagarathna, J, speaking for the Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riety 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 it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." (Emphasis supplied) 73. Thus, certain restrictions or limitations, on the exercise of personal liberty, by the State or other such human agency, are necessary elements, in the interest of liberty of a well-ordered society or societal interest. 74. This Court has also held that unlimited and unqualified liberty cannot be said to be in favour of societal interest. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569, this Court observed: "Liberty cannot stand alone but must be paired with companion virtue i.e. virtue and morality, liberty and law, liberty and justice, liberty and common good, liberty and responsibility which are concomitants for orderly progress and social stabilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anting 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 has been able to strike a balance between the personal liberty of the accused and the interest of the State, in other words, the societal interests. Each bail application should be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the various factors germane to the well settled principles of grant or refusal of bail. In the words of Philip Stanhope, "Judgment is not upon all occasions required, but discretion always is". 79. In the result all these appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders of bail passed by the High Court are hereby set aside." 20. 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. We shall discuss the same in detail. 20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cie 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); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576] and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 - 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail. 20.1.7. 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 prosecution's theory of a pre-planned murder. In para 32, the High Court discounted the evidentiary value of the recovery of weapons merely because they were seized from an open place. With regard to medical evidence, in para 31 the Court found that a further opinion of the doctor issued later (stating that 13 of 39 injuries were blood-oozing) was contrary to the post-mortem report, and held that this discrepancy ought to be evaluated at trial. These are indicative of a premature judicial evaluation of guilt or innocence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. 20.2.5. Further, such an approach of the High Court is contrary to the judicial precedents of this court, including Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2007) 11 SCC 195 ], Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 180], wherein, it was held that courts, while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of witnesses, as this function squarely lies within the domain of the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ension 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 facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused." 20.2.7. 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. 20.2.8. In Dinesh M.N. (SP) v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2008 SC 2318], the court clarified: "Even though the re-appreciation of the evidence as done by the court granting bail is to be avoided, the court dealing with an application for cancellation of bail under section 439(2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration. That is so because it is not known as to what extent the irrelevant materials weighed with the court for accepting the prayer for bail." 20.2.9. Thus, 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate 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 was sufficient material, which was ignored by the High Court while granting bail, and accordingly set aside the bail order. (This case is discussed below in dept for another proposition). 20.3.4. In Imran v. Mohammed Bhava [Criminal Appeal Nos. 658 and 659 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl) Nos. 27 and 1242 of 2022) dated 22.04.2022], a three- Judge Bench held as follows: "32. This court in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., has reiterated that it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." 33. Applying the ratio of the decisions of this court referred to above to the facts of the case in hand, we have no hesitation in observing that the High Court erred in not considering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..." 20.4.3. In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (supra), 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. 20.4.4. Similarly, in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court reiterated that the fact that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground to release the accused on bail, especially where a complete chain of circumstances has been prima facie established during investigation. The Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court in that case holding that: "6. .... the High Court has not at all adverted to the material collected during the course of the investigation. The High Court has not at all considered the material/evidence collected during the course of the investigation even prima facie and has directed to release respondent no.2 in such a serious offence of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife, by simply observing that as it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principles. 20.5. Post-bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the question of continuation of bail, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order. 20.5.1. The fact that the accused were in custody for more than 140 days, or exhibited good conduct post-release, does not ipso facto render the order of bail sustainable, if it suffers from non-consideration of material factors at the stage of grant. 20.5.2. In State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi [2005 (8) SCC 21], this Court reaffirmed that "...the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration... by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail... when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe..." 20.5.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court held: "....the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused. 33. In the present context the period of custody of seven months, in our considered opinion, melts into insignificance. We repeat at the cost of repetition that granting of bail is a matter of discretion for the High Court and this Court is slow to interfere with such orders. But regard being had to the antecedents of the accused which is also a factor to be taken into consideration as per the pronouncements of this Court and the nature of the crime committed and the confinement of the victim for eight days, we are disposed to interfere with the order impugned. 34. We may note with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The present one is basically an appeal challenging grant of bail where the High Court has failed to take into consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to A2, by emphasizing his status, the influence he wields, and his role in obstructing the investigation. It was submitted that A2 has actively mobilized widespread media support and shaped the public narrative in his favour, thereby creating an atmosphere capable of prejudicing the ongoing investigation and undermining the fairness of the trial. It was further contended that A2 was not a passive onlooker but an active conspirator who played a pivotal role in the planning and executing the crime. However, the High Court failed to consider these vital aspects while granting bail, raising serious concerns about the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 22. We now turn to a detailed examination of the above contentions. (a) Nature and Gravity of the offence 22.1. The seriousness and heinous nature of the alleged offence is a significant factor for consideration, while evaluating a plea for cancellation of bail. 22.1.1. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598], this Court held that "the nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - the more heinous the crime, the greater the chance of refusal of bail, though the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that "Cancellation of bail is permissible where the order granting bail was perverse, or if the accused tampers with evidence or attempts to influence witnesses." 22.2.2. In State v. Amarmani Tripathi (supra), this Court stated that "the Court must examine the likelihood of the accused tampering with prosecution witnesses or attempting to subvert justice. Bail should not be granted if the accused is likely to interfere with the trial process." 22.2.3. Further, it was held that "even the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence is sufficient to deny bail." In Deepak Yadav v. State of UP [(2022) 8 SCC 559], bail was cancelled owing to apprehension of tampering with witnesses. 22.2.4. In P v. State of M.P. [(2022) 15 SCC 211], the Court held that bail can be cancelled if the accused: * attempts to tamper with evidence; * influences witnesses; * induces others to make false statements; * or even if there is a genuine apprehension of miscarriage of justice. 22.2.5. The appellant alleged that A2 is not merely misusing liberty post-bail but is the mastermind of efforts to derail the investigation. In such circumstances, the preponderance of pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cilities are not available in jail". The burden to prove such necessity lies on the accused. 22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal [(2004) 11 SCC 165]. (d) Non-consideration of material facts by the High Court 22.4. An order that overlooks material evidence or proceeds on an erroneous premise is perverse, and such perversity forms a valid ground for cancellation or setting aside of bail. 22.4.1. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (supra), this Court laid down that "where the order granting bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, or non consideration of material facts, the same is rendered perverse and is liable to be set aside." Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (supra) the Court held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticle 14, and mandates that no individual - however wealthy, influential, or famous - can claim exemption from the rigours of law. A celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail. 23.1. In State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle [(2009) 11 SCC 541], it was observed that "grant of bail in serious offences involving public confidence must be handled with great caution, especially where the accused enjoys influence". 23.2. In Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [(2011) 6 SCC 189], this Court held that "the position and standing of the accused in society are relevant. If the accused is so influential that his very presence at large may intimidate witnesses or subvert justice, bail can be denied or cancelled." 23.3. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 439], this Court cautioned that "the position or status of the accused in society, if likely to affect the investigation or trial, is a valid consideration in rejecting bail". 23.4. Similarly, in Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2022) 8 SCC 1], this Court reaffirmed that "influential persons are more capable of ....