The court dismissed the bail order after finding irrelevant considerations: Supreme Court of India
The relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. This honorable judgement was passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Versus Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli) & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No 422 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
This batch of five appeals raised from orders of the High Court of Gujarat granting bail, under Section 439 of the Crpc, six persons who had been implicated in five homicidal deaths. FIR at Police Station Aadesar, Gandhidham for offences under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506(2) and 34 of the Ipc, Sections 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant was the informant on whose statement, the FIR was registered at 1930 hours in respect of an incident which took place at 1300 hours. The incident took place in Hamirpur which led to the commission of five murders had its genesis in a land dispute. The informant alleged that he and his brother had gone to their farm at 6:00 am. At 1 pm, the informant and his brother-in-law were returning home in a Scorpio vehicle with five other persons. When the vehicle reached the untarred road passed through the farm, two persons came out along and dashed his tractor on the front portion of the Scorpio vehicle. He parked his tractor on the rear side of the Scorpio, behind which another Sumo vehicle came to be stationed. The Scorpio and its occupants were waylaid. As the informant 1 and others attempted to run away from the scene, he saw the homicidal incident resulted in the death of five persons. About fifteen years ago certain agricultural land had been sold to another person, gave it for cultivation and he was refusing to give the fields for cultivation to the informant as a result of which a quarrel had taken place.
The court opinioned that, “It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse”
The appeal was disposed of by the court stating that, “the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses”