2014 (12) TMI 1347 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves legitimate acceptation and put in the compartment of a legal sustainable order so that this Court should not interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT - We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body - A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law anxiously guards liberty. But a pregnant and significant one the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member and it desires that the citizens should obey the law respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. Coming to the case at hand it is found that when a stand was taken that the 2nd Respondent was a history sheeter it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the 2nd Respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and therefore the impugned order clearly exposes the non-application of mind - the order has to pave the path of extinction for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice and accordingly we set it aside. The Respondent No. 2 is commanded to surrender to custody forthwith failing which it shall be the duty of the Investigating Agency to take him into custody immediately - the order passed by the High Court admitting the Respondent No. 2 on bail is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order granting bail.
2. Application of the principle of parity in granting bail.
3. Consideration of the accused's criminal antecedents.
4. Impact of the accused's liberty on societal order and justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court examined the legal substantiality and defensibility of the High Court's order dated 22.09.2014, which granted bail to the 2nd Respondent under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court's decision was based on the principle of parity, as a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the potential threat to witnesses, making the order vulnerable.

2. Application of the Principle of Parity in Granting Bail:
The High Court's order was primarily based on the principle of parity, as the co-accused Ashok had been granted bail. The Supreme Court noted that the allegations against Ashok and the 2nd Respondent were different, with the 2nd Respondent having a more significant role in the crime, including firing at the deceased. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of parity should not be applied mechanically and must consider the specific roles and allegations against each accused.

3. Consideration of the Accused's Criminal Antecedents:
The 2nd Respondent had a substantial criminal history, with multiple cases registered against him, including serious offences under Sections 302, 307, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court had overlooked these antecedents, which should have been a crucial factor in deciding the bail application. The Court referenced several precedents, emphasizing that the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the potential threat to witnesses should be considered while granting bail.

4. Impact of the Accused's Liberty on Societal Order and Justice:
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of balancing individual liberty with societal order and justice. While liberty is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be curtailed when an individual poses a danger to society. The Court noted that the 2nd Respondent's criminal history and the gravity of the offence necessitated a cautious approach. The High Court's failure to scrutinize these aspects and its capricious application of the principle of parity led to the Supreme Court setting aside the bail order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court annulled the High Court's order granting bail to the 2nd Respondent, emphasizing the need for a careful and judicious approach in bail matters, especially when dealing with individuals with significant criminal antecedents. The Court directed the 2nd Respondent to surrender to custody immediately, clarifying that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail issue and would not affect the trial's merits.