Grant or refusal of bail

Question of grant/refusal of bail was to be determined judiciously leaving regard to the facts and circumstances of each case

Where the prosecution would satisfy the court, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed the crime falling in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the court must refuse bail

Where accused would satisfy the court that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty of such offence; the court must release him on bail

For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, the court would not conduct a preliminary trial/inquiry, but would only make a tentative assessment i.e. would look at the material collected by the Police for and against accused and prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence could be offered which, if left un-rebutted, could lead to the inference of guilt

Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case was neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage

Court would not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at bail stage.

Order, granting or refusing bail, must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests; viz, sanctity of individual's liberty and the interest of the society

While granting or refusing bail, two conflicting interests, namely the requirement of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail; and the absolute adherence of fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he was found guilty.

Basic theme and philosophy of the rule of consistency was to scrutinize thoroughly and strictly, covering each and every aspect of the role performed by one culprit during the commission of the offence with other co-accused of the same offence

Mere granting of bail to one of accused, nominated in the F.I.R., would not create any space to extend the concession of bail for remaining perpetrators, unless the material available in case, prima facie indicated same set of allegations.

Right of accused to get bail under amended S.497, Cr.P.C. is not left to discretion of court but is controlled by that provision

Bail under newly-added proviso under S.497, Cr.P.C. can be refused to accused by court, only on the ground that delay in conclusion of trial occasioned on account of act or omission on the part of accused or any person acting on his behalf

Bail under amended provision can also be refused by court, if accused is previously convicted offender for offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of court is accused of act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life.