In a significant legal development of Mendar Singh Vijay Singh v/s State of Bihar & Another, the Supreme Court has overturned the High Court's decision to revoke the bail granted to an appellant, restoring the order originally passed in December 2022. This case highlights the importance of due process and the need for transparency in judicial proceedings, especially in relation to the suppression of criminal antecedents during bail applications.
Background of the Case:
The appellant in this case was facing serious charges, including offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). An FIR had been lodged against him on July 9, 2016, based on these allegations.
In 2022, the appellant filed a bail application before the Sessions Judge, which was rejected. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the High Court, which initially granted bail to the appellant on December 8, 2022. However, this decision was later challenged.
The High Court’s Reversal:
The situation took a dramatic turn when, in February 2023, an application for modifying the bail order was rejected by the same learned Single Judge of the High Court. Despite this, the Judge initiated suo motu proceedings and directed the Registrar General to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Based on the findings of this inquiry, the High Court, on August 25, 2023, reversed its earlier order and recalled the bail granted to the appellant, effectively dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.
The key reason cited for the recall of the bail order was that the appellant had allegedly suppressed material facts, particularly related to his criminal antecedents, during the bail proceedings. The High Court found that this suppression of material facts was a significant factor that disentitled the appellant to the equitable relief of bail.
Arguments in Court:
During the appeal, the appellant's counsel, Shri Ganesh Khanna, argued that the appellant had no intention of suppressing any material facts. He contended that the criminal antecedents mentioned were either cases where the appellant had been released on bail or where closure reports had been filed. The appellant’s legal team also emphasized that no cognizance had been taken in cases where the closure reports had been filed, suggesting no criminal wrongdoing on the appellant’s part.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Shri Anshul Narayan, argued that the suppression of material facts was a critical issue that justified the High Court’s decision to revoke the bail. The State’s counsel highlighted that even though a closure report was filed, the Court had taken cognizance, and the concealment of criminal antecedents could not be overlooked.
The Supreme Court’s Decision:
After reviewing the materials presented and considering both sides, the Supreme Court found that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the recall of the bail. Notably, there was no allegation from the investigating agency that the appellant had violated any bail conditions or misused the liberty granted to him. The Court concluded that the appellant had been entitled to bail as per the High Court’s original order from December 8, 2022, and thus, the revocation was unwarranted.
In light of this, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders from February 15, 2023, and August 25, 2023, restoring the original bail order from December 8, 2022. This ruling emphasizes the importance of upholding bail decisions unless there is clear evidence of a violation of conditions or misuse of the granted liberty.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the critical nature of transparency and adherence to due process in judicial proceedings, especially when dealing with matters of bail. The Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a reminder that judicial decisions should be based on clear and substantiated grounds, particularly when revoking liberty previously granted to an individual. The decision to restore bail highlights the need for careful scrutiny of the facts and ensures that justice is not denied on the basis of mere allegations without concrete proof.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Arms Act, 1959
Indian Penal Code, 1860
