Supreme Court: While Granting Bail To Accused Courts Must Consider Threat To Witnesses/ Victims

Supreme Court: While Granting Bail To Accused Courts Must Consider Threat To Witnesses/ Victims

The Supreme Court (SC) in the case titled Sudha Singh (Appellants) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Respondents) ruled that Courts must consider the impact on the witnesses or victims in a criminal case while granting bail to an accused person.

The SC bench comprising of former CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna, and V Ramasubramanian, has set aside an order of the HC which granted bail to an accused who was arrested under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A criminal appeal was filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court (HC) that granted bail to the accused who has been arrested with respect to the offense punishable under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The appellant is the wife of a deceased victim who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. A First Information Report was registered in that regard and a charge sheet for offenses under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the accused.

The accused is alleged to be a contract killer and a sharpshooter. The accused has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for serious offenses including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy.

An appeal was filed against the order of the HC and it was mentioned that the Court has ignored the antecedents of the accused and the potential to repeat his acts by organizing his criminal activities.

In the case titled Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P, 1 (2014) 16 SCC 508- The SC held that when a stand was taken that the accused was a history sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

In another case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 446- It was stated that the Apex Court ordinarily would not interfere with a High Court's order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. It is equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly.

The Apex Court noted that the HC has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. The Court further stated that it is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question.

It said that Courts should consider the impact that the release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.

The SC while setting aside the order of the HC stated that "Liberty is important, even that of a person charged with a crime but it is important for the Courts to recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses if such accused is released on bail."