India

Court should focus on seriousness of offense while granting anticipatory bail: SC

By PTI

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that the seriousness of an offense and the specific charge are the criteria that the court should consider while granting anticipatory bail to an accused.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna made the observation while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to two accused in a murder case.

The top court said it has to determine whether the High Court has applied the right principles in allowing applications for anticipatory bail based on the material available at this stage.

“The courts should generally be guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicant and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or deny it,” the bench said.

The top court was hearing an appeal challenging the anticipatory bail granted to two accused in connection with an offense registered under 34 (common intention) under sections 302 (murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. .

The top court observed that the offense is of a serious nature in which a person was murdered and the FIR and the statement indicate the specific role of the accused in the crime.

“The order granting anticipatory bail ignores material aspects including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific charges against the accused.

Therefore, a sufficient case has been made out to quash the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.”

The top court said there was no need to examine the facts in detail at the present stage and would examine whether the high court had the right principles for granting anticipatory bail.

The bench observed, “The material at this stage cannot be examined in the manner of a criminal trial. It needs to be determined whether the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail were properly formulated and implemented by a single judge.” was gone,” the bench said. said.

Back to top button