<p>The Supreme Court has said that though liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations while considering an application for bail.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case. </p>.<p>"Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused," the bench said.</p>.<p>In this regard, the top court also cited the Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning thereby “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself". </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-sets-aside-hc-order-suspending-a-doctor-s-licence-in-contempt-case-1242037.html">SC sets aside HC order suspending a doctor’s licence in contempt case</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench set aside the Rajasthan High Court's orders allowing bail to Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam, and Rajendra Bishnoi in connection with the FIR related to the murder of 25-year-old Vikash Panwar. The accused were brothers, husband and other in-laws of a woman with whom the deceased was allegedly having a live-in relationship.</p>.<p>"The High Court has lost sight of the vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning," the bench said.</p>.<p>Rohit Bishnoi, brother of the deceased, had challenged the validity of the HC's orders, contending that the accused were not only involved in a conspiracy to kill Panwar, but also actively participated in his murder. Referring to the gravity of the alleged offences by the accused, the bail applications ought not to have been allowed, his counsel submitted. </p>.<p>After going through the allegations, the bench said the High Court, while passing the orders, had not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. </p>.<p>"Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness (the woman) in the trial and exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out we cannot rule out the possibility of the accused influencing other witnesses and tampering with evidence if they continue to remain on bail, in the absence of any evidence as to the circumstances under which the woman has turned hostile.</p>.<p>The court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks, saying this is not a fit case for grant of bail.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that though liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations while considering an application for bail.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra said a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case. </p>.<p>"Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused," the bench said.</p>.<p>In this regard, the top court also cited the Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning thereby “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself". </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-sets-aside-hc-order-suspending-a-doctor-s-licence-in-contempt-case-1242037.html">SC sets aside HC order suspending a doctor’s licence in contempt case</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench set aside the Rajasthan High Court's orders allowing bail to Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam, and Rajendra Bishnoi in connection with the FIR related to the murder of 25-year-old Vikash Panwar. The accused were brothers, husband and other in-laws of a woman with whom the deceased was allegedly having a live-in relationship.</p>.<p>"The High Court has lost sight of the vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning," the bench said.</p>.<p>Rohit Bishnoi, brother of the deceased, had challenged the validity of the HC's orders, contending that the accused were not only involved in a conspiracy to kill Panwar, but also actively participated in his murder. Referring to the gravity of the alleged offences by the accused, the bail applications ought not to have been allowed, his counsel submitted. </p>.<p>After going through the allegations, the bench said the High Court, while passing the orders, had not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. </p>.<p>"Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness (the woman) in the trial and exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench also pointed out we cannot rule out the possibility of the accused influencing other witnesses and tampering with evidence if they continue to remain on bail, in the absence of any evidence as to the circumstances under which the woman has turned hostile.</p>.<p>The court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks, saying this is not a fit case for grant of bail.</p>
