The Supreme Court has reinstated bail for an accused in an attempt to murder case, ruling that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without strong justification. The Court emphasized that bail should not be revoked unless there is clear evidence of misconduct, witness intimidation, or attempts to delay proceedings.
The case involved an individual charged under Section 307 of the IPC, who had been granted bail after spending two years in custody. Despite the ongoing trial, the High Court later revoked the bail. The Supreme Court found this decision unjustified, noting that the accused had not misused his liberty or tampered with evidence.
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, criticized the High Court for conducting what amounted to a “mini-trial” while considering bail cancellation. The Supreme Court stressed that the presence of an accused at a crime scene alone is insufficient grounds for revoking bail, especially when the injury inflicted was minor.
Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court restored the bail order and reaffirmed that the accused must continue appearing before the trial court as required. It also clarified that its ruling did not reflect on the merits of the case itself.