In a significant ruling emphasizing the gravity of criminal history, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a bail order granted by the Patna High Court to five individuals accused of a violent armed assault. The apex court held that the lower court's failure to consider the accused persons' past criminal records demonstrated a clear "non-application of mind."
Criminal Antecedents: A Vital Factor Ignored
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, quashing the bail previously granted. The bench strongly asserted that criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offence are crucial factors that must be evaluated during any bail hearing. The accused in question were described as habitual offenders with multiple pending cases against them.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the Patna High Court's order was flawed because it did not refer to the long criminal history of the accused. This omission, according to the top court, rendered the bail order "manifestly arbitrary" and legally unsustainable.
Why Bail Can Be Cancelled for Serious Crimes
The bench elaborated on the legal principles governing bail cancellation. While acknowledging that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled ordinarily, the court outlined exceptions for serious offences.
"In cases where the offences are of a serious and heinous nature, capable of creating fear and apprehension in society at large... and where continued presence of the accused on bail is likely to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice... courts are not powerless to cancel the bail," the bench stated.
The court classified the present case—involving a premeditated, armed, and violent attack—as precisely fitting this category, making the cancellation of bail both "necessary and imperative."
State's Argument and Systematic Abuse of Force
The Bihar state government had challenged the High Court's bail order, presenting several key arguments:
- The High Court failed to examine the criminal backgrounds of the accused.
- It ignored the seriousness and planned nature of the crime, which was allegedly executed after the informant failed to pay extortion money.
- The material on record showed prior extortion demands, threats to life, and concerted action by multiple assailants.
The state contended that such offences represent a systematic abuse of criminal force to assert dominance and strike at the core of public order. It argued that when a trial is underway and risks of witness tampering or evidence obstruction exist, judicial discretion in granting bail must be exercised with extreme caution.
The Supreme Court concurred, reinforcing its consistent stance that past criminal conduct reflects an accused person's character and bears directly on the likelihood of misusing liberty if released on bail.
This ruling serves as a stern reminder to all courts to meticulously balance the liberty of an accused against the larger interests of society and the smooth administration of criminal justice, especially in cases involving violent, habitual offenders.
