The Supreme Court set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granting bail to a murder accused who had remained absconding for nearly nine years, holding that the High Court had ignored vital material and failed to apply settled principles governing grant of bail in serious offences.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed a criminal appeal filed by the complainant-father of the deceased, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s September 3, 2024 order by which the accused was released on regular bail in a case arising from a 2014 murder, where a burnt body was found in a ditch.
The Court noted that the accused had evaded arrest since 2014 despite non-bailable warrants and a reward declaration, and was apprehended only in May 2024 after the constitution of a Special Task Force. While co-accused were tried and convicted in 2023, the respondent-accused faced trial separately due to prolonged abscondence. The Trial Court had rejected his bail plea, citing long abscondence, criminal antecedents, and risk factors, but the High Court granted bail on the ground that evidence had been recorded, and co-accused were on bail pending appeal.
Terming the High Court’s approach unsustainable, the Supreme Court held that severity of the offence, prolonged abscondence, and criminal history were material considerations that had been brushed aside without adequate reasoning. The Court reiterated that although higher courts are generally slow to interfere with bail orders, interference is warranted where discretion is exercised mechanically or without application of mind.
The Bench also took note of the prosecution’s submission that after being released on bail, the accused was involved in further criminal conduct, including FIRs arising out of alleged assaults, observing that such conduct weighs against continued liberty.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, granting liberty to apply afresh for bail if material witnesses are not examined within nine months.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR; Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Adv.; Mr. Shivam Sengupta, Adv.; Mr. Ketan Priyadarshee, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR; Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, AOR; Mr. Neelmani Guha, Adv.; Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Adv.; Mr. Pranshu Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Prasanjay J Sahani, Adv
