New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasized that the liberty of an individual is a precious right under the Constitution, and courts must ensure that such liberty is not lightly interfered with.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan overturned a January 3 order by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had revoked the bail granted to an accused in an attempt-to-murder case. The apex court observed that there was no material, even prima facie, to justify depriving the accused of his liberty.
“In light of the liberty of an individual being a precious constitutional right, courts must be cautious not to interfere with it lightly. We find no valid reason for the high court to cancel the bail, as there is no material to suggest, even prima facie, that the appellant’s conduct after the grant of bail warranted the deprivation of his liberty,” the bench stated.
The court also noted that there were no allegations of the accused influencing or threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, or adopting dilatory tactics to delay the trial.
“The high court did not cite any specific act by the appellant post-bail that violated the terms and conditions of his bail or justified its revocation,” the bench said in its February 20 order.
The Supreme Court referenced its 2024 ruling in the case of Ajwar versus Waseem, which the high court had relied upon. The 2024 decision outlined that, while considering bail cancellation or revocation, courts must evaluate whether the accused has misused their liberty, delayed the trial, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, or if any supervening circumstances emerged post-bail.
The 2024 verdict also clarified that bail orders could be interfered with if they are found to be perverse, illegal, or based on extraneous material.
“Despite quoting relevant passages from the 2024 decision, the high court did not address any of the pertinent considerations in this case. Therefore, there was no basis for cancelling the bail,” the bench observed.
The apex court criticized the high court for conducting what it described as a “mini-trial” while deciding whether to cancel the bail.
“Given these circumstances, we conclude that the high court was entirely mistaken and unjustified in cancelling the appellant’s bail,” the bench said. It set aside the high court’s order and reinstated the August 28, 2024, bail order issued by the sessions court.
The Supreme Court directed the accused to appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless exempted. It also warned that the trial court would be free to cancel the bail if the accused failed to appear without justification or breached any bail conditions.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
for more news visit https://ztcnews.com and https://znews.today/