The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision cancelling the bail of an accused, Kailash Kumar, and restored the Sessions Court's order granting him bail. The apex court observed that there was no material evidence to justify revocation of bail and emphasized that “liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered.”
Kailash Kumar, accused of assaulting the complainant with an axe, was arrested on June 4, 2022, under charges of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC). After spending two years in custody, he was granted bail by the Sessions Court on August 28, 2024. However, upon a plea by the complainant, the High Court overturned the bail order, prompting the accused to challenge it before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in a strongly worded order, pointed out that the High Court had failed to highlight any violation of bail conditions by the accused. “The High Court has not referred to any single act of the appellant, post grant of bail, which could give rise to formation of an opinion that any of the terms and conditions of bail have been violated by the appellant,” the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan stated.
The court highlighted the legal principles governing bail cancellation, citing Ajwar v. Waseem and Anr. (2024), which mandates that revocation can only be considered under specific circumstances such as misuse of liberty, interference with witnesses, tampering with evidence, or delays in trial. However, the Supreme Court noted that “despite quoting relevant passages” from the precedent, the High Court “does not appear to have adverted to any of the relevant considerations in the present case.”
The bench observed that instead of assessing whether the accused had misused his bail, the High Court engaged in an unwarranted evaluation of the evidence against him. “What the High Court did was to embark upon conducting sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not,” the Supreme Court remarked. It also took exception to certain observations made by the High Court that could potentially influence the pending trial.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the bail order of the Sessions Court, stating that there was no evidence of threats to witnesses, tampering with evidence, or delays in trial caused by the accused. However, it directed that Kumar must strictly adhere to the bail conditions and be present at all trial proceedings unless exempted. “Should the appellant fail to appear on any date without justifiable cause or breach any of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail,” the court cautioned.
Picture Source :
