The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order, which had cancelled the bail of appellant Kailash Kumar. The high court, on January 3, 2025, had cancelled the bail earlier granted to him by the sessions court on August 28, 2024, in an FIR related to attempt to murder.

 

The apex court also objected to the observations made in the impugned judgment having the potential of affecting the trial and sounding the death knell for the appellant.

 

Having examined the matter, the bench said, "Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty."

 

The appellant was arrested on June 4, 2022, for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC.

 

It was alleged that the appellant had given an axe blow on the head of the complainant. Court was informed that the trial had already begun after framing of charges, and 17 witnesses had already been examined out of 43 witnesses.

 

After having suffered incarceration for two years, the appellant had applied for bail before the sessions court, which allowed his plea upon recording reasons and issuing terms and conditions.

 

However, the complainant successfully assailed the order before the high court.

 

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the bench found the high court had not referred to any single act of the appellant, post grant of bail, which could give rise to formation of an opinion that any of the terms and conditions of bail had been violated by the appellant and, therefore, grant of bail warranted revocation or cancellation.

 

The bench pointed out, despite quoting relevant passages from the decision by the top court in Ajwar Vs Waseem and another (2024), the high court did not advert to any of the relevant considerations in the case at hand; hence, the question of recording a satisfaction that bail granted should be cancelled did not arise. 

 

"Instead, what the High Court did was to embark upon conducting sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not. According to the High Court, presence of the appellant and the co-accused at the scene of occurrence and causing of injury to the complainant by the appellant being undisputed and notwithstanding that the injury caused by him is simple, there was common intention for which Section 34 of the IPC is attracted," the bench noted.

 

Court also said there were also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering with the evidence.

 

"Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was completely in error and unjustified in cancelling the bail of the appellant," the bench said.

 

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

 

It restored the order of the sessions court, directing that he should be released on bail, subject to the same terms and conditions as were imposed by the trial court earlier.

 

"We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case," the bench said.

 

The apex court directed the appellant to appear before the trial court on the dates fixed unless exempted. "Should the appellant fail to appear on any date without justifiable cause or breach any of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail," the bench said.