2015 (12) TMI 1892 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of bail granted - accused is facing trial under Section 302 IPC for which punishment is life imprisonment or death - bar on grant of bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is true that once bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering any supervening circumstances which is not conducive to fair trial. It is also settled law that once bail is granted it cannot be considered barely on a request from the side of the complainant unless and until the complainant shows that the same is being misused and it is not no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. The bail can be cancelled only in those discerning few cases where it is shown that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted is misusing the same. The respondent is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25/27/30 Arms Act. The respondent sustained bullet injuries in his hand which clearly shows his presence at the spot at the time of incident in question. This fact has been further established by the opinion dated 20.03.2014 given by Dr. Bhim Singh with regard to bullet injuries sustained by respondent. He opined that the said injuries could be possible due to low velocity project-tile (bullet) which lost velocity after piercing the body of the deceased Rajbeer Rana. It is not in dispute that the accused is facing trial under Section 302 IPC for which punishment is life imprisonment or death. Thus granting bail is barred under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. If in such a case bail is granted in a mechanical manner then wrong message goes to society that after committing a heinous crime one can move freely out of the jail. This type of concession encourages the offender and discourages the victim in particular and the society as a whole. Thus in such cases bail should be granted rarely in a case where the involvement of the accused is prima facie doubtful - In the case in hand the respondent actively participated in committing murder. His presence is very much established by the injuries received on his hand. Accordingly the order dated 02.03.2015 whereby the learned trial Court granted bail to the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to surrender before the trial Court within one week from today - Petition allowed.

Summary

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

Detailed Analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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