Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of bail jurisprudence and victim-centric criminal justice, the Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Madras High Court granting bail to accused persons who allegedly murdered a key eyewitness while earlier released on bail. Terming the High Court’s order as “manifestly perverse”, the Court held that the grant of bail suffered from arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and disregard of crucial facts, especially the prior misuse of liberty by the accused.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, underscores that prior cancellation of bail due to grave supervening circumstances is a determinative factor and cannot be ignored while considering a subsequent bail plea.
Factual Background of the Case
The case arose from a violent incident dated February 24, 2020, where two persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community were allegedly attacked by an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. An FIR was registered under the following provisions:
- Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The accused were initially granted bail in September 2020. However, during the subsistence of bail, four of the accused allegedly murdered one of the victims, who was also a key eyewitness in the attempted murder case. This led to the registration of a second FIR under Section 302 IPC and allied provisions.
In view of these developments, the High Court cancelled the bail in March 2023, and the accused surrendered.
High Court’s Controversial Bail Order
In a surprising development, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court later granted fresh bail to the accused in the original attempt-to-murder case. The High Court also directed a joint trial of both the attempted murder and the subsequent murder cases.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by one of the surviving victims, who argued that:
- The High Court ignored the serious misuse of bail by the accused.
- The accused had demonstrated a clear threat to witnesses and fair trial.
- The victim’s objections under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act were not meaningfully considered.
Victim’s Right to Be Heard Under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act
One of the central issues before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court violated Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which mandates that victims must be given an opportunity of being heard in bail proceedings.
The Supreme Court clarified an important distinction:
- Section 15A(5) guarantees an opportunity of hearing, not a right to a favourable outcome.
- In the present case, the victim was aware of the bail proceedings.
- The objections raised by the victim were recorded by the High Court.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was no procedural violation of Section 15A(5). However, the grievance lay in how the objections were dealt with, not in the denial of hearing itself.
Supreme Court’s Findings: Bail Order Held “Manifestly Perverse”
Despite rejecting the technical argument on Section 15A(5), the Supreme Court found the High Court’s bail order unsustainable on substantive grounds.
1. Ignoring Prior Cancellation of Bail
The Supreme Court emphasised that the earlier cancellation of bail due to the murder of a material witness was a crucial and determinative factor. The High Court’s failure to even advert to this aspect rendered its order fundamentally flawed.
Justice Mahadevan, authoring the judgment, observed:
“The omission to consider prior cancellation of bail and demonstrated abuse of liberty renders the impugned judgment manifestly perverse.”
The Court reiterated that misuse of liberty strikes at the root of bail jurisprudence, particularly when it directly affects the administration of justice.
2. Failure to Assess Gravity of Offences
The Supreme Court further held that the High Court failed to undertake a meaningful assessment of:
- The seriousness of offences under Section 307 IPC and the SC/ST Act
- Allegations of witness intimidation
- The impact of such conduct on the fairness of the trial
In cases involving heinous crimes and social vulnerability, courts are required to apply heightened scrutiny while considering bail.
3. Criminal Antecedents Ignored
Although the High Court recorded the criminal antecedents of the accused, it failed to draw any conclusions from them or assess their relevance to bail. The Supreme Court held that merely noting antecedents without analysis amounts to mechanical adjudication.
Joint Trial Direction Also Questioned
While the Supreme Court’s primary focus was on the bail order, the direction of the High Court to conduct a joint trial of the attempted murder and murder cases was also viewed with caution. The Court indicated that procedural directions impacting trial fairness must be exercised judiciously, especially when witness safety is at stake.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
- It reinforces that bail is not a one-time entitlement, especially where liberty has been abused.
- It clarifies the scope of victim’s rights under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act.
- It reiterates that prior cancellation of bail is a decisive factor, not a peripheral consideration.
- It strengthens judicial sensitivity towards witness protection and fair trial rights.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised with care, reason, and accountability. Granting bail while ignoring grave supervening circumstances—such as the alleged murder of a witness by the accused while on bail—undermines public confidence in the justice system.
By setting aside the High Court’s order as “manifestly perverse,” the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that liberty cannot be allowed to become a license to subvert justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims and serious crimes under special statutes like the SC/ST Act.
Also Read
