New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a significant directive to High Courts, cautioning that habitual offenders should not be granted bail easily. The apex court stressed that while considering bail pleas in criminal cases, courts must carefully examine the criminal background of the accused and the seriousness of the offence.
The observation came while the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Patna High Court, which had granted bail to five accused in a serious criminal case. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court had failed to properly assess the criminal antecedents of the accused before granting bail.
The Supreme Court underlined that two key factors must be considered while deciding bail applications in criminal cases. First, courts must examine whether the accused has a criminal history. If the accused is a habitual offender, bail may be denied. Second, the gravity and brutality of the crime must be assessed. Even first-time offenders involved in heinous crimes should not be granted bail without due caution, the court said.
While reiterating that the principle of “bail, not jail” has been emphasized in several earlier judgments, the bench clarified that this principle cannot override concerns related to criminal antecedents and the severity of offences.
In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the accused were notorious criminals with multiple cases pending against them. It observed that granting bail to individuals involved in planned murders and armed crimes poses a serious risk, as such offences are likely to be repeated if the accused remain at large.
By cancelling the bail granted by the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court once again reaffirmed that notorious and hardened criminals do not have an automatic right to bail, sending a strong message to courts across the country to exercise greater caution in such matters.
