Supreme Court says high courts can't go into evidence, decide guilt at stage of bail

'If we allow this [Allahabad High Court] order to continue for even a single day, then high courts will get a free hand on convicting or acquitting accused during the bail stage,' said the bench.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said high courts cannot go into evidence and decide a person's guilt at the stage of bail in a criminal case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan therefore set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court wherein "sweeping remarks" at the stage of bail were made on merits of the murder case against an accused.

"The high courts cannot go into the evidence and decide whether a person is guilty or not during the bail stage. We cannot sustain this order for even a single day. If we allow this order to continue for even a single day, then high courts will get a free hand on convicting or acquitting accused during the bail stage," said the bench.

While granting bail to a man named Amit Kumar on May 27 in the case, Allahabad High Court reportedly commented on the case's merits.

"In the impugned order dated May 27, 2024, the high court while granting bail to respondent number 2 (Amit Kumar) has made sweeping remarks on the merits of the case. The impugned order is set aside," the bench said.

The top court remitted back the matter to the high court for a fresh adjudication underscoring it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

It was hearing a plea challenging the bail granted to Kumar in the case.

According to the FIR, on account of a previous animosity Kumar and others fired gunshots on the victim Anuj Chaudhary at around 6pm in Moradabad district on August 10, 2023.

On May 27, the high court while considering Kumar's bail plea, said, "After assessing the entire evidence and the circumstances in totality, it clearly comes out that applicant (Amit Kumar) was standing nearby the four-wheeler outside the gate of the apartment and at best the role of hatching conspiracy/instigating the assailants could be attributed to him."

The top court frowned upon the high court's findings on the merits where it went ahead to note that the names of four-five persons had come to light in the case after an unexplained delay, losing credibility and tutoring couldn't be ruled out.

"It is made clear that the role of the assailants in this case is clearly distinguishable from the present applicant. The applicant has been in jail since September 1, 2023 and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial in near future," said the high court.