Grant of bail: What the Supreme Court held [Read Judgment]

Courts must not go deep into the merits of a case while considering an application for bail. This established principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court today while quashing the bail granted to a murder accused by the Orissa High Court..The judgment was delivered in the case of State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra by a Bench of Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and L Nageswara Rao..The case of the prosecution was that the deceased Mahendra Swain was heading to his office in his vehicle accompanied by his driver and security guard, when two unknown assailants hurled bombs on the vehicle and opened indiscriminate firing on the deceased, leading to his death. According to the first information report, the murder was committed at the behest of certain people including the respondent Mahimananda Mishra. The incident was mainly on account of business rivalry between the company of the deceased and the company of the respondent. It was alleged that the respondent had given death threats to the deceased directly and through the brother of the deceased..During the course of the investigation, the police found that the respondent had gone to Thailand via Chennai, Delhi and Nepal, before he could be arrested. Only after a Look-Out Circular was issued, he was traced to Thailand and was deported therefrom to India, after which he was arrested..The preliminary charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 25(1)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act, as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act..The High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent on the ground that there is no prima facie material against the respondent to establish his involvement in the conspiracy to murder the deceased. Further, it also noted that the undated letter of the deceased addressed to the police showing apprehension to his life cannot be treated as a dying declaration; the material on record does not indicate any motive on the part of the respondent to conspire towards the commission of murder in question, and that the confessions of the co-accused cannot be made use of against the respondent at this stage, inasmuch as they are admissible only to the extent that they lead to recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act..The Supreme Court went on to note that while considering an application for bail, courts must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused..However, it is well established that courts must not go deep into the merits of the case when considering a bail application. All that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the Court held..In the instant case, the court noted the submissions of the State that there was severe animosity between the deceased and the respondent, as is evidenced by the fact that at one point an intervention by the district administration was necessitated to keep the peace. The statement of the family members of the deceased disclosed that the respondent had given death threats to the deceased. A letter of the deceased was seized from the house of the deceased during the course of the investigation which disclosed that the deceased was under the apprehension of his death by the respondent due to business rivalry. The respondent fled to Thailand to avoid arrest and was arrested only on deportation pursuant to the issuance of a Look Out Circular..Having regard to the above facts and circumstance, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court granting bail in favour of the respondent..Senior Advocate R Basant along with advocates Vipin Nair, PB Suresh and Shibashish Misra appeared for the de-facto complainant and the State. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the accused..Read the judgment below.