The bench comprised of Justices L.Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta passed a judgment on 7 Jan 2020 in the case titled as MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC. v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
It was alleged that the deceased was the Chairman of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Chamanapalli village. Members of the Society alone were permitted to carry out fishing activities in the tanks of villages. The membership of the Appellants in the Fishermen Cooperative Society was cancelled due to which they were not permitted to carry out fishing activities. The deceased was attacked by the Appellants at the village Panchayat office, when he was going to inspect the tank at about 5:00 pm. He was attacked with stones and he succumbed to the injuries. A criminal case was registered against the Appellants.
The Supreme Court referred to Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and stated that the factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by the Court to be:
- • the gravity of the crime,
- • the character of the evidence,
- • position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses,
- • the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence,
- • the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and
- • obstructing the course of justice etc.
SC stated that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the Order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court was not right in cancelling the bail of the Appellants. The Orders passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. The complaint alleging that the Appellants were influencing witnesses were considered vague and without any details regarding the involvement of the Appellants in threatening the witnesses.
Further the Supreme Court stated that,
“Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. For the purpose of bail, the Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police.”
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
