Bail Revocation Two Years After Grant Set Aside; Stringent Conditions Imposed Instead: Supreme Court

The five appellants, alleged political activists, were charged with murdering the victim in December 2021 by colliding with his scooter and attacking him, under Sections 120-B, 302 and other provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act (para 3). After nearly a year in custody, the trial court granted them bail in December 2022, and the Additional Sessions Judge rejected the State's cancellation plea on 05.04.2024 (para 4). On the State's petition, the High Court on 11.12.2024 set aside their bail as granted mechanically on custody and the prosecutor's lack of objection, with no change of circumstances since an earlier refusal (paras 2, 5-6).

The State's petition, filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) CrPC, was maintainable despite the Sessions Judge's refusal, since nothing prevented the High Court from exercising its inherent powers (paras 14-15). Cancellation of bail for violating conditions differs from revocation of a bail order that is perverse or illegal (para 17). As the Sessions Court had proceeded mainly on the prosecution's lack of objection, the High Court could have remitted the matter, but given the lapse of time this Court decided the merits (paras 18-20). Despite the gravity of the offence, the appellants had spent nearly a year in custody and almost two years on bail, and any risk to witnesses could be met by stricter conditions (para 21). An FIR alleging an assault by one appellant during interim bail was no ground for cancellation, the complainant having denied his involvement on affidavit (para 22). Antecedents by themselves cannot justify denial of bail, following Ayub Khan (para 23). Revocation protects trial integrity, but "bail being the rule and jail an exception" cannot be ignored (para 24); with 141 witnesses, the trial will take time (para 25).