Bail application

Court, while deciding bail application would consider allegations made in FIR, statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., nature and gravity of charge; other incriminating material against accused; legal pleas raised by accused and relevant laws.

Court, while deciding bail application would consider allegations made in FIR, statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., nature and gravity of charge, other incriminating material against accused, legal pleas raised by accused and the relevant laws.

While deciding bail application court would consider allegations made in FIR, statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C., nature and gravity of charge, other incriminating material against accused, legal pleas raised by accused and relevant law.

Evidence of prosecution could not be tested in depth at bail stage, and only tentative assessment was to be made.

Before entertaining the bail application, the court had to see; firstly, that whether the person/accused seeking bail, was implicated/nominated or charged for commission on bailable, or non-bailable offence; secondly, whether he had been arrested or detained, or in custody of Police; and thirdly, whether be felt apprehension of his arrest at the hands of Police in some case

Determination of all those ingredients for the court, were sine qua non, while entertaining bail application-Before seeking relief under Chapter XXXIX, (Ss.496 to 502, Cr.P.C.,) accused must satisfy the two tests i.e. "charge for an offence", and his "arrest in a criminal case".

Court had to take a tentative account, or for that matter a bird's eye-view of the available record, which prima facie connected accused with the crime entailing capital punishment

Courts were not bound to consider every cross case to be a fit case for further inquiry; and to grant bail to accused, giving the fact that only tentative assessment was permissible at bail stage.

Court should not be influenced from the sensitivity of alleged offence while considering the versions of prosecution and defence in juxtaposition.

Provisions of S.497 & 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous provisions and in the absence of any guideline, the principles which governed S.497, Cr.P.C. might guide the exercise of discretion under S.426, Cr.P.C.

Trend that eye-witnesses take a somersault and give statements which are different from prosecution case and file affidavits at the stage of hearing of bail application with the intention of creating doubt in the prosecution case to enable accused to get the bail was deprecated by High Court with the observation that courts has to be very careful in such cases and see that bail applications are disposed of strictly according to law on merits keeping in view the distinction between tentative assessment and actual evaluation of evidence by the Trial Court

Mind of the Court has to be satisfied where about-turn of some of the eye-witnesses in such a manner shakes up the whole prosecution case from the point of view of credibility of the remaining material

Each case, in such a situation has to be decided on its own merits.