A bank made up of Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah made the statements when voiding the bail issued by Punjab and Haryana High court a man facing a murder and criminal conspiracy case.
The nature of the charge and the evidence are also vital factors in deciding on bail statements, the court said, adding that the severity of punishment in the event of conviction also influences the issue.
Referring to its previous decisions, the court said that the deprivation of liberty for denial of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice.
“Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice will be thwarted by whoever seeks the benign jurisdiction of the Court to be released for the time being. The court must also consider the likelihood of the plaintiff interfering with the prosecution’s witnesses or contaminating otherwise the process of justice “, the SOUTH CAROLINA observed.
“It is further noted that it is rational to investigate the background of the man requesting bail to find out if he has a bad record, in particular a record that suggests that he is likely to commit serious crimes while on bail,” he added. said the bank.
The higher court said that while bail is being granted, the factors among other circumstances that must be considered are: the nature of the charge, the severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of the supporting evidence, the reasonable apprehension of alteration of the witness. or the apprehension of a threat to the complainant; and prima facie court satisfaction in support of the charge.
The CV’s observations came while listening to an appeal against a higher court in Punjab and Haryana granting bail to a defendant in connection with a FIR TREE in the comisary Sadar Jalandhar, Jalandhar district under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intent), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Weapons Law, 1959.
The court said the higher court has not appreciated or considered the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction and the nature of the supporting evidence.
“The higher court has also failed to appreciate the facts of the case, the nature of the accusations, the seriousness of the crime and the role attributed to the accused. According to the complaints, the accused Inderpreet Singh, Defendant number 1 here is the main conspirator who hatched the conspiracy along with other co-defendants and that too from jail.
“The higher court has also failed to note the serious charge of plotting conspiracy from jail. The higher court should have considered that if defendant number 1, defendant Inderpreet Singh, can plot the conspiracy from jail, which he will not do if he is put down. released on bail, “the bank said.
The higher court said that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the higher court has made a serious mistake in releasing Singh on bail and therefore the contested judgment and order rendered by the higher court are untenable and the same it deserves to be annulled and established. Besides.