The Trial Court cannot ignore the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court while granting bail: Manipur High Court

The Court must keep all these considerations in account when determining the bail application and the conditions set down by the Supreme Court cannot be ignored during the award of the bail. Merely because the presence of the accused can be secured at the trial, that is not the only factor that is required to be considered while granting bail. This auspicious judgment was passed by The High Court Manipur in the case of The State of Manipur & ors vs LH Wolring & ors [MC (Crl. Rev. P.) No. 1 of 2021] by Honourable Justice M.V. Muralidaran.

The facts of the case are the respondents are actively indulging in various terrorist activities attempts and threats by the accused that will carry out the violent terrorist activities by use of illegal weapons which are believed to be in their possession. Some article we seize from their possession and they were produced before the CJM.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned CJM who decided the Bail Application at the initial stage, all the papers pertaining to the investigation were produced but the relevant papers were not considered by the CJM. In spite of this, without considering the stage of investigation or serious circumstances pointed against the respondents, it seems the learned Judge has entertained the applications and released the accused who are involved in a serious offence on bail.

The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that this Court should not interfere at this stage because the accused are already released on bail and bail should not be cancelled unless there is evidence on record that the accused are likely to tamper with the evidence or are likely to abscond.

While disposing of the petition the court relied on supreme court judgment State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, therein it was held that “(i) the nature and seriousness of the offence, (ii) the character of the evidence, (iii) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, (iv) a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, (v) reasonable apprehension about the witnesses being tampered with, (vi) the larger interests of the public or the State and (vii) similar other consideration which arise when a Court is asked for bail in a non-bailable offence.” The court further ordered the petitioner to re-arrest the accused and to remand into judicial custody.

Click here for the Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *