38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, June 03, 2023
Top Stories
Interviews Know The Law Book Reviews Videos
About Us Contact Us

Public outrage cannot be considered as a ground to refuse bail: Bombay High Court [READ ORDER]

By Rashbana Thansi      Jul 29, 2021      0 Comments      1,759 Views
Public outrage cannot be considered as a ground to refuse bail: Bombay High Court [READ ORDER]

On Friday (16/08/2021), the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High court ordered that Bail cannot be refused to douse the collective anger and outrage of society. 

The Bombay High Court observed this while granting bail to an applicant accused of abetment of suicide of a forest officer in the case Vinod Shivkumar v. the State of Maharashtra.

Facts of the case

In the instant case, a complaint was filed by the husband of the deceased officer, upon receiving suicide notes. This led to the filing of an FIR against the accused Shivkumar, who was then the immediate supervisor of the deceased.

Justice Rohit B. Deo said despite the existence of a prima facie case, bail merits to be granted if the offense is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The High Court reiterated that while there does appear to be, in favor of the prosecution, the existence of a prima facie case of abetment as would attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, the same cannot be said as regards Section 312 which penalizes voluntarily causing a woman with child to miscarriage.

Perusal of Evidence 

After examining the letters submitted by the prosecution, the High Court noted that the deceased had blamed the accused of continuous and deliberate oppression. The suicide letter also alleged that the deceased was insulted and humiliated in the presence of colleagues and was summoned at odd hours and addressed in inappropriate language. 

In addition, the suicide letter also alleged the threat of departmental action and involvement in criminal prosecution by the accused against the deceased officer.

"The gravity of the offense, the status of the accused, the possibility of the accused not being available, or otherwise, to face the trial, the propensity or the potential to influence the course of the trial are but some of the relevant considerations,” said Justice Deo.

Courts observation

Court Observing that bail cannot be refused either as a pre-trial punishment or to douse the collective anger and outrage of society, the High Court clarified that if there was no material on record to suggest that Shivkumar, who is a member of the Indian Forest Service, will flee from the course of justice or will subvert the trial or influence the witnesses, there is no purpose in continuing his incarceration. 

The High Court thus granted bail to Shivkumar upon the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two solvent sureties of like amount, noting that the prosecution was not able to place any material to show any attempt of influencing witnesses. 

However, it was clarified that the observations were being made by the High Court only to consider the bail application and it was for the trial court to consider if the conduct of the accused had pushed the deceased to commit suicide.



Bombay High Court
Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Related Posts
View All




Lawstreet Advertisement

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email