Liberty of individual precious right, courts ought to be wary in interfering with it: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered with.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan set aside a January 3 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by which it had cancelled the bail granted to an accused in an attempt-to-murder case, saying there is no material to show, even prima facie, that he should be deprived of his liberty.

"Suffice to observe, the liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the high court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that the conduct of the appellant post the grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty," it said.

The bench said there are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threats given to witnesses or of tampering with the evidence.

It added that any material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.

"The high court has not referred to any single act of the appellant, post the grant of bail, which could give rise to the formation of an opinion that any of the terms and conditions of bail has been violated by the appellant and, therefore, the grant of bail warrants revocation or cancellation," the bench said in its February 20 order.

The top court referred to its 2024 order passed in the case of Ajwar versus Waseem, which was relied upon by the high court.

It said in terms of the 2024 verdict, while seized of an application for cancellation or revocation of bail, the considerations that ought to weigh with the courts are whether the accused has misused the concession of liberty, has been delaying the trial, influencing or threatening witnesses, tampering with the evidence in any manner and there has been any supervening circumstance after the grant of bail, warranting a re-look.

It said the 2024 decision also lays down that orders granting bail could be interfered with if the same are found to be perverse or illegal in the sense that a court's conscience is shocked or extraneous material has been considered.

"Despite quoting relevant passages from the said (2024) decision, the high court does not appear to have adverted to any of the relevant considerations in the present case. Hence, the question of recording a satisfaction that the bail granted should be cancelled does not arise," it said.

The apex court said that instead, what the high court did was to embark upon conducting some sort of a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether the bail should be cancelled or not.

"In such a view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the high court was completely in error and unjustified in cancelling the bail of the appellant," it said. The bench set aside the high court's order and restored the August 28, 2024 order of the sessions court granting bail to the accused.

The bench said the accused has to appear before the trial court on the dates fixed unless exempted and if he fails to appear on any date without a justifiable cause or breaches any of the terms and conditions of his bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the relief.