In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that a court which grants bail retains the authority to revoke it if serious allegations surface against the accused, even if there has been no misuse of the bail conditions.
“If there are serious allegations against the accused, the same court that granted bail can cancel it, irrespective of any misuse,” declared Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The bench also emphasized that a superior court can revoke bail if lower courts fail to consider crucial evidence or underestimate the severity of the offense and its societal impact.
Justice Hima Kohli, authoring the judgment, highlighted several critical factors for courts to evaluate when deciding on bail in serious offenses. These include the nature of the accusations, the crime’s execution, the offense’s gravity, the accused’s role and criminal history, the potential for witness tampering and repeat offenses, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the overall necessity of granting bail.
This ruling stemmed from an appeal by the informant in a murder case, who argued that the High Court granted bail without considering substantial evidence of the accused’s involvement. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court overlooked consistent testimonies from the complainant and eyewitnesses, as well as the accused’s criminal history.
Moreover, the Court criticized the High Court for not adequately considering the custody duration of the accused. Before their release on bail, the accused had spent less than three years in custody despite being charged with a double murder. The Court concluded that such a serious offense warranted the denial of bail.
The appeal was ultimately upheld, and the bail was revoked.
