file photo
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said criminal antecedents and gravity of offence are vital factors while deciding bail plea and quashed bail granted by Patna HC to five accused who had indulged in armed assault and were habitual offenders with multiple cases pending against them.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the HC failing to refer to criminal antecedents of the accused demonstrates “a non-application of mind” and the order deserved to be quashed.”It is well-settled that, as a general rule, bail once granted should not ordinarily be cancelled. However, in cases where the offences are of a serious and heinous nature, capable of creating fear and apprehension in society at large due to the impact they may have, and where continued presence of the accused on bail is likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or impede the course of trial, courts are not powerless to cancel the bail. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction conferred under law may and ought to be exercised to cancel bail in order to uphold the ends of justice and rule of law. The present case is clearly of this nature, involving a premeditated, armed, and violent attack, which renders the exercise of such jurisdiction both necessary and imperative,” the bench said.Challenging the HC order, state govt had contended that HC failed to examine the criminal antecedents of the accused, seriousness & gravity of the offences alleged, and the planned manner in which the crime was executed on failure of the informant to pay extortion money. “The material on record prima facie establishes that the allegations of prior extortion demands, threats to life, and concerted action of multiple assailants, point towards a systematic abuse of criminal force to assert dominance and settle scores. Such offences strike at the very core of public order and the rule of law and, therefore, warrant a cautious and circumspect exercise of judicial discretion before directing release of accused on bail, particularly when trial is underway and the possibility of influencing witnesses tampering with evidence or otherwise obstructing the course of justice cannot be ruled out,” it said.It said SC has consistently held that criminal antecedents constitute a vital and determinative factor which ought not to be ignored while considering an application for grant of bail, as they reflect the conduct, character, and behavioural pattern of the accused, and bear directly upon the likelihood of misuse of liberty.”Apparent omission on part of HC in failing to advert to the antecedents of the accused respondents demonstrates a non-application of mind to a germane and determinative consideration, thereby rendering the exercise of discretion manifestly arbitrary. The impugned orders, having been passed without balancing liberty of the accused against interests of society and administration of criminal justice, stand vitiated in law,” it said.
