“Bail cannot be granted in a mechanical manner ignoring available material indicating direct involvement of the accused in heinous crimes, as it risks miscarriage of justice.”
Court’s Decision
The Tripura High Court allowed the State’s application under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 BNSS, cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court to four accused (Santanu Sen, Jayanta Debnath, Dilip Banik, Dipen Banik) in a murder case related to the fatal assault of a young man during Biswakarma Puja celebrations.
The Court directed these four accused to surrender before the trial court by 5 July 2025, while modifying the bail conditions for the other two accused (Piklu Sen and Papan Chakraborty) with additional safeguards to ensure they do not tamper with evidence or abscond.
Facts
The case arose from an incident on 18 September 2024 during Biswakarma Puja when the deceased, Subhankar Saha, returning home with friends on a scooter, was attacked by a group armed with sharp weapons, resulting in fatal injuries. His father lodged an FIR, leading to registration of a case under Sections 127(1)/118(2)/109/3(6) and 103 BNS.
All accused were arrested/surrendered and were granted interim bail on 4 January 2025 and regular bail on 7 January 2025 by the Sessions Court, despite the investigating officer’s prayer for custody trial. The State filed for cancellation of bail alleging that post-release, the accused threatened the informant’s family and that the Sessions Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence and prima facie material.
Issues
- Whether the Sessions Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a murder case was justified.
- Whether post-bail conduct, including alleged threats to the informant, warranted cancellation of bail.
- Whether the Sessions Court failed to consider prima facie involvement, gravity of the offence, and relevant guidelines while granting bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The State argued that the Sessions Court mechanically granted bail without considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the direct involvement of the accused.
- The investigating officer’s report seeking custody trial was ignored despite completion of investigation within the statutory period.
- Cited Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 9 SCC 269, Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768, and Bharatbhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat (2020) 18 SCC 693 to emphasise that:
- Bail orders passed without applying judicial mind and ignoring relevant considerations are liable to be set aside.
- Gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement, and likelihood of tampering with evidence must be considered while granting bail.
- Submitted that post-bail, the accused threatened the informant’s family, as evidenced by a complaint made to the police on 14 February 2025.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Defence argued that:
- The initial interim bail order was not challenged by the State, and the chargesheet was incomplete, with the investigating officer seeking a supplementary report pending SFSL findings.
- The prosecution delayed moving for cancellation, with no application made before the Sessions Court after bail was granted.
- The alleged threats post-bail were only recorded in a police report under Section 126 BNSS (formerly Section 107 CrPC) without FIR registration, indicating lack of seriousness.
- Cited Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362, emphasising that mere allegations of threats should not be grounds for routine cancellation of bail.
- The defence argued that Piklu Sen and Papan Chakraborty were wrongly implicated, lacking any direct evidence of involvement.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court applied principles from:
- Y v. State of Rajasthan and Ajwar v. Waseem, reaffirming that granting bail requires consideration of:
- Prima facie involvement,
- Nature and gravity of charges,
- Severity of punishment,
- Likelihood of tampering with evidence,
- Post-bail conduct.
- Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180: Bail can be cancelled if granted mechanically or by ignoring relevant material indicating prima facie involvement.
- Mehboob Dawood Shaikh clarified that cancellation should not be based solely on unverified threat allegations, requiring careful judicial scrutiny.
- Y v. State of Rajasthan and Ajwar v. Waseem, reaffirming that granting bail requires consideration of:
The High Court held that the Sessions Court ignored these established guidelines, necessitating intervention.
Precedent Analysis
- Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022): Emphasised that bail orders ignoring relevant considerations warrant interference.
- Ajwar v. Waseem (2024): Bail can be revoked where lower courts ignore gravity of offence and relevant material.
- Bharatbhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat (2020): Highlighted arbitrary exercise of discretion as a ground for cancelling bail.
- Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012): Reinforced that ignoring prima facie involvement warrants cancellation.
- Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004): Caution against using unverified threat allegations to cancel bail.
These cases were applied to balance the accused’s rights against the gravity of the offence and protection of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
- The FIR and witness statements indicated direct involvement of four accused (Santanu Sen, Jayanta Debnath, Dilip Banik, Dipen Banik) in the fatal assault.
- The Sessions Court granted bail without assigning specific reasons and ignored prima facie evidence, gravity, and the investigating officer’s custody trial request.
- Post-bail allegations of threats, while not resulting in a separate FIR, added to the gravity of the situation.
- Bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically, but perverse orders ignoring material facts warrant cancellation to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court cancelled the bail granted to four accused (Santanu Sen, Jayanta Debnath, Dilip Banik, Dipen Banik), directing them to surrender before the trial court by 5 July 2025.
The bail of Piklu Sen and Papan Chakraborty was retained with modified conditions, requiring them to:
- Execute fresh bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount.
- Attend court once a week until trial completion.
- Not tamper with evidence or leave jurisdiction without permission.
Failure to comply would permit the prosecution to seek appropriate action.
Implications
- Reinforces that bail orders ignoring relevant considerations and material are liable to be cancelled.
- Highlights the need to consider gravity and prima facie involvement in granting bail for heinous offences.
- Clarifies that post-bail conduct and the risk of miscarriage of justice can justify cancellation to preserve the integrity of the justice system.
Brief Note on Cases Referred
- Y v. State of Rajasthan, Ajwar v. Waseem, Bharatbhai Bharwad: Bail orders ignoring relevant factors can be set aside.
- Kanwar Singh Meena: Ignoring prima facie involvement is a valid ground for cancellation.
- Mehboob Dawood Shaikh: Alleged threats alone insufficient; must be carefully scrutinised.
These cases guided the court’s intervention and structured reasoning.
FAQs
- Can bail be cancelled if granted without considering the gravity of the offence?
Yes, courts can cancel bail if it was granted mechanically, ignoring material indicating prima facie involvement in a serious offence. - Do post-bail threats to informants justify cancellation of bail?
If credible, such threats can be grounds for cancellation, especially in cases involving serious offences. - Can bail conditions be modified while retaining bail? Yes, courts can impose stricter conditions to ensure attendance, prevent tampering with evidence, and secure justice.
