BABU vs ARSHAD JAVID And Another
This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail where prosecution witnesses delayed disclosing material facts for over four months. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting bail was rightly exercised and that provisions concerning further inquiry were inapplicable to the reasoning employed. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where bail is granted based on the overall assessment of the circumstances, particularly delayed disclosure by eyewitnesses, and does not rest on the grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2), interference by the apex court is unwarranted unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or incorrectly.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the grant of bail by the High Court when discretion has been rightly exercised?
- Does a delay of more than four months by eyewitnesses in disclosing material facts to the Investigating Officer justify the grant of bail?
- Are rulings related to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relevant when bail is granted on other discretionary grounds?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioner /complainant has applied for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Arshad Javid by the learned High Court.
2.In admitting the respondent to bail, learned High Court has noticed as under; "Ilyas and Arif P.Ws. Claimed to have seen a person lying injured near the cluster of trees and 3 armed persons going away soon after hearing the fire report but they kept mum for more than 4 months and disclosed these facts to the Investigating Officer for the first time on 14-8-1985."
3. It was contended by the learned counsel that no case for further inquiry was made out and in the circumstances the discretion was not correctly exercised by the learned High Court under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. The contention must fail because nowhere it is mentioned that bail was granted as the case was of further inquiry. Certain rulings cited by the learned counsel, which related to the application for section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Are, therefore, irrelevant. The discretion in the case having been rightly exercised, no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.