New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Kerala High Court for granting bail to a murder accused charged with the murder of a woman doctor in front of her father, observing that though the court usually does not interfere in anticipatory bail cases, it will have to intervene where bail is granted "without application of mind and in disregard of relevant factors."
The Bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is discretionary.
"Such discretion has to be exercised judiciously," the bench said.
"There is no straight-jacket formula for grant or refusal of bail. The seriousness of the charge is undoubtedly one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications," the court added.
The Session's Court had dismissed the bail application of the accused while the High Court allowed it observing that indefinite incarceration was not necessary. The government approached the top court against the High Court order.
Read: Congress leader withdraws plea against Pilot camp
The father of the deceased doctor, who filed an Intervention application in the matter, argued before the court that the accused was carrying a knife when he came to the clinic which clearly showed that he had planned to kill her and was not in the heat of the moment as argued by the accused.
The prosecution said the victim and the accused were living together from 2018 onwards. She later started the multi-speciality Dental Clinic, with financial support from her father. Mahesh misappropriated money from the clinic and also harassed the victim, both physically and mentally. In the circumstances, the victim was constrained to separate from the accused and start living at her own house.
The counsel for the accused had argued that the apex court does not ordinarily interfere in HC's discretion under Article 136 in a case pertaining to granting or refusing bail. The court agreed with the argument but said that it is in unexceptional cases but here where the HC did not consider the factors, this argument can not be allowed to stand.
Read: Centre trying to convince Jharkhand govt on commercial coal mining policy
The Court observed that though the HC noted it is a heinous crime, it yet proceeded to grant bail just because the accused was in custody for 75 days.
"The High Court in our opinion clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the Respondent Accused to not enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. The High Court completely ignore the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eye witness is a resident of Ernakulam. Most of the prosecution witnesses would restrict their movements to the limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station," observed the court.
The court directed to serve its order copy to the concerned police station as well as the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance and disposal of the plea.
The High Court did not apply its mind to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, or the fact that the accused had been absconding after the incident."
Read: Court issues notice on social media privacy policies
The Bench also noted that the High Court did neither consider nor discuss the elaborate reasons given by the Sessions Court in its order rejecting the prayer of the accused for bail.
