Bail Must Weigh the Settled Factors: Supreme Court Cancels Mechanical High Court Bail in Murder Case

The appellant’s sister, a widow, was found strangulated at her home on 2 July 2009, and on his complaint an FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered (para 4). A neighbour said he saw the accused, the first respondent, rushing out of her house at about that time. Arrested on 13 July 2009, the accused was not identified at the first test identification parade but was identified at the second (para 4). The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed three bail applications, and a charge-sheet was filed on 7 October 2009 (paras 5-6). On 11 January 2010 the Calcutta High Court granted him bail under Section 439 of the Code by a short order, and the appellant appealed (paras 2, 7-8).

The Court said that it does not normally interfere with a High Court order granting or rejecting bail, but the High Court must exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in line with the settled principles (para 11). Among other circumstances, a bail court must weigh whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; the severity of punishment on conviction; the danger of absconding; the accused’s character, behaviour, means, position and standing; the likelihood of the offence being repeated; a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced; and the danger of justice being thwarted (para 11). An order that grants bail mechanically, without adverting to these, suffers from non-application of mind and is illegal (para 12). Here the High Court lost sight of them: the accusation was a murder by strangulation, a neighbour placed the accused at the house, charges had not been framed, and the three earlier rejections were not even mentioned, although bail after earlier rejections needs specific reasons (para 13).