Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.
Background
The appellant's husband, Mukeshbhai, was allegedly beaten to death by five accused persons while he, his wife (the appellant) and her aunt were collecting scrap outside a factory in Gujarat; he was tied to the factory gate and beaten with a pipe and belt before succumbing to his injuries. After a thorough investigation resulting in a charge sheet under Sections 302 and other IPC provisions along with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Gujarat High Court granted bail to two of the accused, Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya, in separate orders. The widow (original complainant), rather than the State, approached the Supreme Court challenging both bail orders.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had granted bail in a "perfunctory and casual manner" without considering the gravity of the offence, the eyewitness accounts of the complainant and her aunt (both of whom identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade), and the fact that the incident was captured on CCTV and mobile phone footage. Rejecting the accused's argument that bail should not be disturbed after two-and-a-half years without any allegation of misuse of liberty, the Court clarified that quashing an unsustainable bail order is legally distinct from cancelling bail for breach of conditions, and once a bail order is found unsustainable on facts and law, cancellation must follow. Both bail orders were set aside and the accused were directed to surrender within a week. The Court also strongly criticised the Gujarat State and its Director of Prosecution for failing to appeal the bail orders themselves in such a serious matter, directing that its observations be sent to the State's Home and Legal Departments.
Lesson Learnt
A bail order that overlooks the gravity of the offence, direct eyewitness evidence and corroborating video evidence can be set aside by a higher court even years later, and passage of time or absence of misuse of liberty is not a valid ground to preserve a legally unsustainable bail order; the State also bears a duty to promptly challenge such orders on behalf of victims.