Bail

It was alleged that the trial remained delayed due to a parallel private complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 08.04.2022 before the Court, under the same offences

Trial Court stayed the proceedings of the challan case on 28.09.2022

Private complaint was eventually withdrawn by the complainant on 02.03.2024 and the trial of the challan case resumed thereafter

Due to excessive delay in the trial, the appellants moved bail application before the Trial Court on statutory grounds under S.497, Cr.P.C., citing prolonged incarceration exceeding two years without framing of charges

However, the Trial Court dismissed the bail application on 30.03.2024

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which had been dismissed through the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal

It was regrettable state of affairs that the revision petition was filed before the High Court on 29.05.2024, yet it remained pending for nearly eight months

Despite such considerable delay, instead of adjudicating the revision petition on merits, the High Court merely remanded the case to the Trial Court, thereby further prolonging the matter

However, in the present case, the High Court kept the bail matter pending for nearly eight months and, instead of deciding it on its own merits, remanded it to the Trial Court, resulting in further delay

Moreover, in the light of arguments addressed at bar, following points needed resolution in this case; what was the effect of filing of private complaint and its withdrawal in this case; whether the delay in non-conclusion of trial had to be determined from the date of detention of the accused or from the date of submission of challan; and whether the appellants were entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground

Thus, it was the High Court which had to decide these questions itself

In such circumstances, matter was remanded to High Court for deciding the same, within a period of one week.

At bail stage, deeper appreciation of material on record is not permissible, because it would prejudice either the case of prosecution or the accused.

Whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of charge, accused should not be deprived of benefit of doubt.

Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature, which should not influence the Trial Court, in any manner, while dealing with trial of the case.

Observations made in the bail orders are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits.

Observations made in the bail orders are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits.

Observations recorded in bail order are tentative in nature and shall not, in any manner, prejudice or influence the Trial Court during the adjudication of the case.

Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants on merits.

Trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in the case.

Findings made in bail order are tentative in nature and the Trial Court needs not be influenced by them in any way.

Trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in the case.

At the bail stage, a tentative assessment is permissible only if the confessional statement is corroborated by independent incriminating material available on record.

Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and same should not influence merits of the case at the trial.

Expressions "shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years"

Terms "hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal"

Scope

Expression in 4thproviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. i.e hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal is distinct from the restriction on the power and discretion of a Court under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. not to release an accused on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused may be guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for ten years

Such distinction highlights that the exception in 4th proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is not in the context of merits of the case i.e. forming an opinion whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that an accused may have been guilty of one of the offences specified by the Legislature

Bail may have been declined on merits in terms of forming an opinion under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. but if conditions specified under 3rdproviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. are met and the case does not attract one of the exceptions specifically mentioned in 4th proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C., then it entitles an accused to claim bail on the basis of statutory delay as a fresh and independent ground

Exception of being a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal contains four distinct expressions

'Hardened, desperate or dangerous' have been used by the Legislature disjunctively and cannot be construed as conjunctive and they precede the expression 'criminal'

There must be sufficient material placed before Court by prosecution to enable it to form an opinion that if accused is released on bail under 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. then there would be a substantial risk or it would be highly probable that he or she would cause serious harm to the society and its members because of being a hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal.

For such offences grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception.

At bail stage, maximum period of sentence prescribed for an offence is to be considered for determining whether the offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Mere abscondence of an accused by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to the said relief on merits.

Rule of consistency is applicable only when one person's case is at par with the rest of the accused whose post-arrest bail has been granted.

Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the merits of the case at the trial.

Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature, which should not influence the merits of the case at trial.

Observations made in bail orders are only tentative for the purpose of decision on bail application which should not be used to influence the adjudication of the case of any party

Such observations should be kept limited for the sole purpose of bail application.

At bail stage, deeper appreciation of material available on record is unwarranted, and the court has to form its opinion tentatively on the basis of the available record.

Release of accused on bail did not amount to acquittal, it is merely a change in the custody of accused where same is taken from the State and entrusted to his/her sureties.

Whenever a reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail.

Observations made in the bail order are based on tentative assessment of material available on record of the case, which should not influence the mind of Trial Court in any manner at the time of trial.

Petitioner, in FIR under S.302(b) P.P.C., was granted bail after arrest, subject to furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 400,000/- with two sureties in like amount

Petitioner filed application for reduction of the surety amount, which was allowed and he was directed to furnish cash surety of reduced amount

Scope

Court should fix the amount of the bond having due regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence charged, the weight of evidence against accused, the financial capacity of the accused, and his character/criminal history

Amount of the bail bond should not be excessive, harsh or unreasonable but should be such as in the judgment of the Court would ensure presence of the accused

If there are more than one accused in a case, the Court may stipulate different amounts for their bail bonds because each one of them stands before the bar of justice as an individual

In a case where the Government's only interest is in preventing flight the Court must set the bail at a sum designed to ensure that goal

In the present case, the Court had reached to the conclusion that the applicant's bail bond needed to be reduced so as to enable him to seek his release without further detention

Resultantly, the bail bond was reduced to Rs. 200,000/

Petition was allowed.

Observations recorded in bail orders are purely tentative in nature and should in no way prejudice an independent mind of Trial Court.

In cases involving women, Irrespective of the category of the offences, bail is to be granted as a rule and refused as an exception in the same manner as it is granted or refused in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Bail order should not prejudice the mind of the Trial Court during the trial.

Call Data Record is not a conclusive piece of evidence to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused.

Observations made in bail orders are purely tentative in nature, and should in no way prejudice an independent mind of Trial Court which needed to appraise the evidence strictly in accordance with law and merits of the case.

Conduct of an accused, whether previous or subsequent to the current offence, is always relevant under Art.21 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such conduct rendered valuable help to the Courts to ascertain the intention of the accused with which he committed the offence and to determine as to whether he shall repeat the offence or not.

Benefit of doubt must be taken into consideration even at bail stage.

Mere heinousmess of the offence is not sufficient to take away discretion of the court to grant bail, which is never refused as a punishment and there is no legal or moral compulsion to keep a person in jail.

Mere heinousness of the offence is no ground for the refusal of bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail.

Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the disposal of bail petition.

Observations made in a bail order are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of bail petition and would have no bearing upon trial of the case, which should be decided on its own merits by the Trial Court.

Better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence could repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail.

Such observations are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of bail petitions and same have no bearing upon trial of the case.

Better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence could repair the wrong resulting due to mistaken relief of bail.

Observations made in the bail order are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of bail petition and have no bearing upon trial of the case.

Observations made in the bail order are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of bail petition and have no bearing upon trial of the case.

Observations on legal point recorded in bail order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, which would not affect the merit of case before the Trial Court in any manner and the Trial Court would try the case without being influenced from any observation.

Observations made in the bail order aretentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant on merits.

Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits.

Observations/findings made in bail order aretentative in nature and shall not prejudice the Trial Court in determining the matter on merits.

Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and would not influence the Trial Court, while deciding the case on merits.

Essential prerequisite for the grant of bail under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., is that the court must be satisfied based on the material placed on record that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Condition of this clause is that sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused which would mean that question should be such that it has nexus with the result of the case and can show or tend to show that the accused was not guilty of the offence with which he is charged

Grant or rejection of bail is a discretionary relief but such discretion should be exercised fairly and judicially

Word discretion when applied to court means sound discretion judiciously guided by law to lessen the hardship of the people

Bail is not to be refused as punishment.

Such observations are tentative in nature, and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case of the applicants/ accused on merits.

Observations made in bail orders are tentative and should not prejudice the case of either party at trial.