The Supreme Court set aside anticipatory bail in a murder case, slamming the High Court’s casual approach. It stressed that bail in serious crimes like murder must be backed by solid reasoning.
New Delhi: Today, on June 06, the Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically or casually, especially in serious criminal cases such as murder.
This strong observation was made by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta while cancelling an anticipatory bail granted by a High Court to four accused individuals involved in a murder case.
ALSO READ: Honour Killings in India: Cultural Practices vs. Legal Provisions
The case in question related to a violent incident in 2023, where a man was allegedly assaulted by his neighbours using an iron rod and sticks during a dispute about blocking a pathway.
The attack resulted in a fatal head injury, and the victim died the same day. His son, who was present during the incident and later filed the FIR, approached the Supreme Court after the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
While delivering its judgment on May 1, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for granting bail without proper reasoning or legal analysis.
The bench said,
“The order of the High Court does not disclose any reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in a matter involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.”
The apex court further highlighted the lack of judicial scrutiny in the High Court’s decision.
It stated,
“The impugned order is cryptic and lacking in judicial analysis. In cases involving serious offences, the grant of anticipatory bail in such a mechanical manner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”
The Supreme Court also pointed out the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR and accompanying materials.
The court noted that the incident occurred in front of the victim’s son and originated from a dispute about a blocked pathway.
It said,
“The incident appears to have stemmed from a dispute regarding obstruction of a pathway. The specific roles attributed to the accused, as stated in the FIR, indicate that they participated in the assault even after the deceased had collapsed.”
Criticising the High Court further, the bench remarked,
“The High Court clearly failed to appreciate the gravity and nature of the allegations in the case.”
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail and directed the accused individuals to surrender before the appropriate court within eight weeks.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Domestic Violence
