Gravity of offence, specific allegations ignored by High Court: Supreme Court cancels anticipatory bail

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside an order passed by the the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting anticipatory bail to two murder accused (Prashant Singh Rajput vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna found that the parameters for grant of bail were not applied correctly by the High Court and important considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offence as well as specific allegations against the accused were ignored while passing the order..“The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations,” the Supreme Court said..The two accused persons were granted anticipatory bail in connection with a crime registered under Sections 302 (murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code..The appellant before the Supreme Court was the deceased person’s brother-in-law and the complainant. .It was alleged that four persons, including the two respondents before the Supreme Court, had arrived at the scene in a jeep and shot the deceased leading to his death..The High Court had relied solely on the investigating officer’s report, which stated that the two respondent-accused were not present at the scene of the crime. This was a prime consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail..On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that facts need not be examined in detail at the present stage. Rather, the top court examined whether the High Court had factored in appropriate parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail.."The material at this stage cannot be examined with a fine toothcomb in the manner of a criminal trial. What needs to be determined is whether the parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail were correctly formulated and applied by the single-judge," the Supreme Court said..The Court went on to rely on the ruling in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar wherein the top Court had laid out the difference in the approach to be taken while considering a challenge to an order granting bail vis-a-vis an application for cancelling bail granted..The judgment established that when the court in an application for bail, fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court can exercise its power to set aside such bail order..“The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified ... It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment," the Bench went on to remark..The Court further noted that the First Information Report (FIR) and the statements recorded under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) indicated that the respondent-accused had specific roles in the alleged crime. Further, it was pointed out that the alleged offence of murder was serious in nature..Therefore, finding that a sufficient case was made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s decision was set aside.."The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against (the respondent-accused). Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court," the Supreme Court said. .[Read Judgment]