Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, AIR 2020 SC 317

Topic: Bail and Personal Liberty

Court: Supreme Court of India

Issue: The court discussed the relevant factors to be considered at a time of granting the bail and at a time of cancelation of bail. The court also laid down the scope of powers to be exercised by the court in the matter of cancellation of bail.

Held: Factors to be considered while granting bail:

  • The character of the evidence.
  • Position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses.
  • The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence.
  • The possibility of his tempering with the evidence and witnesses.
  • Obstructing the course of justice etc.
  • Factors to be considered at the time of cancellation of bail:
    • The accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity.
    • Interferes with the course of investigation.
    • Attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses.
    • Threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation.
    • There is likelihood of his fleeing to another country.
    • Attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency.
    • Attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
  • Scope of powers to be exercised by the court in the matter of cancellation of bail:
  • It is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
  • It is not necessary for the Sessions Court to discuss the material on record in detail, but there is an indication from the orders by which bail was granted that the entire material was perused before grant of bail.
  • It is not the case of either the complainant-Respondent No.2 or the State that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account by the Sessions Court while granting bail to the Appellants.
  • The order of the Sessions Court by which the bail was granted to the Appellants cannot be termed as perverse as the Sessions Court was conscious of the fact that the investigation was completed and there was no likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence.

See Full Judgement