‘Perverse, arbitrary’: Supreme Court sets aside order giving bail to accused who killed eye witness while out of jail

“Applying the settled principles governing annulment of bail orders, the impugned judgment is vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness, and non-application of mind. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court granting bail to the respondents/accused deserves to be set aside,” the 33-page verdict authored by Justice Mahadevan on December 19 said.

Case

On February 24, 2020, two men belonging to scheduled caste (SC) were allegedly attacked by a group of people.

An FIR was registered under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons ) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code, along with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The accused were granted bail on September 9, 2020 by a trial court following which on December 18, 2022, they allegedly murdered one of the eyewitnesses in the case.

The subsequent crime prompted the police to register a second FIR under Section 302 (murder) and other relevant sections of the IPC.

The high court had initially cancelled the bail of the accused on March 31, 2023.

On April 9, however, the Madurai bench of the high court granted bail to the accused in the first case and directed a joint trial of both cases.

One of the survivors, moved the Supreme Court against the high court’s order granting bail.

Arguments

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that granting of the bail by the high court ignoring the earlier cancellation orders and without any fresh or substantial change in circumstances is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles.

He said that the assault involved the use of deadly weapons and was accompanied by caste-based abuse directed at the appellant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.

The Madras High Court, while granting bail in April 2025, failed to appreciate the gravity of murder of an eyewitness in the case.

Opposing these submissions, counsel for the accused persons informed the court that the appellant and his associates are part of a “land mafia” involved in large-scale encroachments of government lands and water bodies.

He added that the murder of the witness was orchestrated by the appellant’s group to falsely implicate the accused, including in retaliation for his public interest litigation and efforts to remove encroachments.

The counsel said that the delay in trial is attributable to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses
and not to any conduct of the accused.

Observations

The Supreme Court said that the high court granted bail to the accused ignoring prior cancellation of bail and abuse of liberty, failing to consider the death of a material witness.

Setting aside the high court order, the apex court directed the accused to surrender before the jurisdictional trial court within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment.

The top court said that the high court ignored the threat to the fairness of trial, disregarding the gravity and seriousness of the offences, including those under the SC/ST (POA) Act, overlooking criminal antecedents placed on record, and relied on irrelevant considerations such as pendency of civil disputes.

The high court’s judgment does not reflect any meaningful evaluation of the nature and gravity of the offences, the severity of punishment prescribed, or the societal impact of releasing the accused, particularly in offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, where intimidation of victims and witnesses is a recurring concern, the top court noted.

Taking note that the criminal antecedents of the accused were “expressly placed” before the high court and were recorded in its judgment, the apex court said it failed to draw any conclusion or assess the likelihood of reoffending, intimidation of witnesses, or obstruction of justice.

Recording antecedents without evaluating their impact amounts to an empty formality and does not satisfy the judicial obligation to apply mind to relevant considerations, said the top court.

“There is no explanation as to how release on bail, in the backdrop of prior cancellation, death of a material witness, and allegations of witness intimidation, is compatible with a fair and uninfluenced trial,” said the apex court.

The offences in both the FIRs cannot be characterised as being of the “same kind” nor can they be said to form part of the same transaction, said the court.

The high court failed to examine the dates of the alleged offences, the time gap between the incidents, the nature and scope of the offences, the roles attributed to the accused or the stage of proceedings in the respective cases, the court noted.

“No finding was recorded as to how the statutory requirements for a joint trial were satisfied,” said the court.