MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

Date of Judgement: 07 January 2020

Composition of the Bench: Division Bench- Hon’ble Justice Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hemant Gupta. The former authored this judgement.  

Facts and Ratio:

In the present case the Court reiterated “trite law” regarding bail. It is not necessary to acquaint oneself with the intricacies of the facts of the given case. Suffice to note that before reaching the Supreme Court, the High Court reversed a bail order passed by the Sessions Court. This was done on two grounds – that the lower Court had not discussed the entirety of material on record while passing the order. And that the lower court had not accounted for the criminal antecedents of the appellants.

An appeal to the High Court was filed before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.

Presently, the hon’ble apex court enumerated the factors that have continually been held essential while granting bail.  

Thus, the judge granting bail must account for the  following factors-

1. Gravity of crime
2. Character of the evidence
3. Position and status of accused with respect to the victim and witness.
4. Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the crime.
5. The possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and witness and obstructing the cause of justice.  

Depending on the facts of the case, which greatly vary in each case, the Court has to opine whether there appears to be a prima facie case against the accused without partaking in a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence or comment on the same.

In the exigency that the application for cancellation of bail is to be accepted, the principles are enumerated by the learned apex court in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar.  

In the forementioned case, the Court held that the bail could be cancelled when-

1. The accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activities.
2. Interferes with the course of investigation.
3. Tampers with evidence or witness.
4. Threatens witness or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth transaction of the investigation.    
5. There is likelihood of him fleeing to another country.
6. Attempts to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency.
7. Attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his  surety.

Of course, the above list is merely illustrative and not exhaustive.

The Court adverted that cancellation of bail is a harsher order than rejection of bail and must not be lightly resorted to. Thus, cancellation of bail should be resorted to when the order passed by the lower court is perverse or suffers from infirmity which results in miscarriage of justice.

Presently, the Court opined that the order passed by the Sessions Court was not perverse and it could not be inferred that the Sessions Court did not scrutinize the entire material before granting bail since there was an indication to the contrary in the order passed. Ergo, it is not necessary to discuss the material in detail as long as there is an indication that it has been perused in its entirety.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgement of the HC was set aside.

 The full text of the judgement can be accessed by clicking here.