Bail granted by lower court can be cancelled by superior court if evidence, gravity of crime or societal impact not considered: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that while significant scrutiny is required at the instance of a superior court to cancel bail already granted by a lower court, the same could be done if relevant material, gravity of the offence or its societal impact were not considered by the lower court [Imran v Mohammed Bhava]..A three-judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli made the observation while setting aside an order of the Karnataka High Court granting bail and anticipatory bail to two respondents.“In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside,” the top court said. .According to the prosecution, the first accused allegedly had an enmity with one Badrul Muneer, and thus, hatched a conspiracy with all the other accused to eliminate him.Pursuant to this common objective, they came on a bike and car, attacked three people with a soda bottle and stones, and subsequently murdered one Abdul Lathif..The respondents before the Supreme Court had preferred a bail application which was allowed by the High Court on the grounds of parity since the other accused persons were also granted bail.However, subsequently the bail granted to all the other accused was cancelled by the High Court and this cancellation was upheld by the Supreme Court..Therefore, the appellant sought cancellation of the respondents’ bail stating that the High Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the offences and overlooked the version of eyewitnesses and other material. It was the appellant’s submission that granting bail to both the accused, involved in a premeditated murder case, would pose significant threat to all prosecution witnesses..It was brought to the attention of the Bench that the remaining accused whose bail was cancelled, had not yet surrendered. On the contrary, they had been threatening the appellant as well as other eye-witnesses involved in the trial.Both the respondents stated that they were not involved in commission of the crime..It was also stated that bail once granted could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances had rendered it inconducive to allow fair trial.Therefore, the question that fell before the Court for consideration was whether the High Court had exercised its discretion in a mechanical manner..The Bench began by acknowledging that it was a well-established principle that once bail was granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, the judgment in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab was cited to highlight that bail could be revoked by a superior court when relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact were ignored..Thus, it was stated that while each case had its own unique factual matrix, grant of bail must be exercised by having regard to well-settled principles..On examining the material available on record, particularly the statements of all the eye-witnesses and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, it was found that the High Court failed to consider the nature of accusations and relevant evidence against the accused.“The High Court lost sight of the fact that there exists sufficient material against the accused Respondents herein, so as to establish a prima facie case against them,” the Supreme Court said. Therefore, the order releasing the respondents on bail was set aside..[Read Judgment]