SC: Setting aside a perverse bail order is distinct from cancellation

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 17.12.2020, in the matter of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. Etc. observed that the setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged, requiring cancellation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

The setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged, requiring cancellation. (Para 15)

Where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons, the interests of justice may require that the order be set aside and bail be cancelled. The recording of no reasons is one end of the spectrum. The other end of the domain for interference with an order granting anticipatory bail is where the reasons are contrary to the material on record and hence found to suffer from perversity. (Para 15)

The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately, this role is being compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to the victims of crime, if they have survived the crime, and where they have not, to their families. Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details about their lives and circumstances. (Para 20)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_17-Dec-2020

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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