Tue. Sep 22nd, 2020

More caution warranted while grating bail to history sheeters involved in heinous crimes

2 min read

Supreme Court: Deciding the matter where the legal pregnability of
the Bail order passed by the High Court was called in question, the bench of
Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant, JJ held that the grant of bail though involves
exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has
to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

In the present case, where the
respondent was a history sheeter and had been involved in heinous crimes, the
Court said that the heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as there is
a greater chance of rejection of bail. It was held that the High Court erred in
applying doctrine of parity to the case at hand and thereby, ignoring the
criminal antecedents of the respondent and further said that the law expects
the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be
at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously
and not in a whimsical manner.

Taking note of the concept of
liberty and it’s curtailment by law, the Court said that an individual can
enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law
unto himself nor can he be a terror to the society. Stating that a crime though
committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual
character, the Court said that the victim may be an individual, but in the
ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. Hence, considering
that the crimes committed by the respondent are not minor offences so that he
is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such
crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune, the Court set
aside the High Court’s order. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine SC 862, decided on 29.09.2015]
Source: Legal news India

Leave a Reply