The court underscored that bail decisions must weigh the seriousness of charges and potential witness tampering, emphasizing that casual orders lacking reasoning undermine judicial standards.

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside the bail order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 27/2024 (Z).

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is that: On 23.03.2023 at 07:00 hours, written information was received from one Tasso Lajee, S/o Shri Tasso Bida, resident of Village Hari, PO/PS Ziro, District Lower Subansiri, alleging that his uncle, namely Shri Tasso Grayu, had been stabbed in the chest at around 8:40 PM on 22.03.2023. As a result, the victim was severely injured and admitted to Gyati Taka General Hospital, Hapoli. Accordingly, upon receipt of the written information, a case was registered as Ziro P.S Case No. 08/23 under Sections 302 /341 of IPC. Later, on 24.03.2023, the victim, Tasso Grayu, succumbed to his injuries while being taken to Guwahati for treatment.

4. Thereafter, the investigating agency arrested the accused along with his son, Shri Nami Rakesh, from Banderdewa on 30.03.2023. During interrogation, the accused, Nani Chatung, confessed to having stabbed Late Tasso Grayu on the night of the incident. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 02.06.2023, and charges were subsequently framed against the accused under Sections 302 /201 of IPC. Three witnesses have been examined so far, out of which the statements of two witnesses, i.e. P.W. Nos. 1 & 2 have already been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., both of them directly implicated the accused in the incident.

5. Subsequently, the accused/respondent No. 2 approached the learned Sessions Judge, Lower Subansiri District, with an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Ziro P.S. Case No. 08/2023. After hearing the arguments from both parties, the accused/respondent No. 2 was granted bail vide the impugned order dated 20.06.2024. The learned Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration the role played by the accused in committing the crime and also ignored the fact that the accused shared information regarding the incident with his two sisters, i.e. P.W. 1 & 2 and with his son, Shri Nami Radhe @ Rakesh, who is also one of the listed witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge conducted a mini-trial while hearing the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., thereby arriving at an erroneous finding and granting bail to the accused.

6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is a high likelihood of the accused threatening the witnesses who are yet to be examined in this case. Moreover, one of the eyewitnesses to the crime has not yet been examined, and there is every probability that the accused, if allowed to remain on bail, may influence the said witness. The learned Sessions Judge also overlooked the relevant provisions of law and acted in contravention of the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the grant of bail in cases involving heinous offences where the sentence may extend to 10 (ten) years, life imprisonment, or even the death penalty. The High Court has inherent powers and discretion to cancel or set aside bail granted to an accused, even in the absence of supervening circumstances, if the following principles have been overlooked while granting bail:

I. Where past criminal record and conduct o