The Supreme Court has held that the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be ignored and he cannot be granted bail merely on the doctrine of parity. A 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, in a detailed judgment dated 29 September 2015 set aside the order of the Allahabad high court grating bail to a person accused of murder, keeping in view the fact that he was a history-sheeter involved in 7 serious crimes in the past.
In the case of Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. and another], the appellant had challenged the manner in which the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while admitting the accused to bail. At the outset itself, the Supreme Court clarified that if the high court had failed to take into consideration the relevant material factors (such as the past criminal record), it would make the order of granting bail absolutely perverse and totally indefensible. The court clarified that there is a difference between cancellation of an order of bail and legal sustainability of an order granting bail.
The Supreme Court was informed that apart from the present case, there were seven cases pending against the accused (who was respondent no. 2). These cases were: “1. FIR No. 664/02 u/s 302 IPC, PS Kavinagar, Ghaziabad. 2. FIR No. 558/04 u/s. 392, 411 IPC, PS Kotwali, Dist. Bulandshahar. 3. FIR No. 14/05 u/s. 398, 401, 307 IPC PS Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. FIR No. 15/05 u/s. 25, 27 Arms Act, PS Sector 49, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar 5. FIR No. 1614/08 u/s. 364, 302, 201 IPC, PS Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad 6. FIR No. 98/05 u/s. 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Sector 49, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar 7. FIR No. 451/12 u/s. 60 PS Sector 49 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar”.
The court reiterated the well settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
The Supreme Court also observed that:
“It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society…”.
In view of these reasons, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What had weighed with the High Court was the doctrine of parity. The court further observed as under:
“A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.”
Stressing that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances, the court held that the annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which include the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one.
In view of these reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the accused.
Full judgment of the Supreme Court can be seen here.
