Court Must Give Cogent Reasons While Giving Bail To Accused Persons Facing Trial In Serious Offences: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that when an accused person is facing trial under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which are serious offences, the Court must give cogent reasons while releasing them on bail.
In this case, a land dispute was going on between the accused Mehtab and the complainant side.
It was alleged that on the intervening night of June 29th/30th 2021 a tractor was driven over standing crops on the disputed land in question by the accused persons with the intention to take over possession.
It was alleged that all these accused persons were armed with pistols, lathi, iron rod etc. It was further alleged that informant along with his family members and people of village came to the spot and at that time accused persons attacked them with intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal brother of informant died on the spot and 5 others were seriously injured.
It was further alleged that one Vikas @ Pappu fired shot at the deceased and the accused persons fled extending threat of death.
During the investigation, the statement of injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded and he supported the FIR version.
After his bail was rejected by the Trial Court, accused Mehtab was granted bail by the High Court.
Aggrieved, the original informant approached Supreme Court.
Advocate Amita Singh Kalkal appeared for the appellant whereas Advocate Sarvesh Singh Baghel represented the State. The accused was represented by Advocate Nitin Saluja.
The Supreme Court noted that no reason was given by the High Court while releasing the accused on bail.
"No reason whatsoever has been given by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. When the accused person is facing the trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and other offences of IPC, which can be said to be are very serious offences, the High Court ought to have given cogent reasons while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the State, no further independent reason has been given by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail.", the Court noted.
The Court observed that the accused person was known to the complainant and there was prior enmity also.
The Court further observed that even in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC the informant has stood by what he stated in the FIR.
Therefore the Court held thus "Under the circumstances, when the nature of allegations and the seriousness and gravity of the offences has not at all been considered by the High Court and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 – accused on bail, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order granting bail to the accused while directing the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority.
Cause Title- Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.