The Union of India filed an appeal challenging an order dated 30.01.2023, where the respondent, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, was granted bail by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The appellant contested the bail granted to Mrityunjay Singh, arguing that he was closely associated with a banned terrorist organization and had provided financial and logistical support for terrorist activities. The prosecution alleged that Mrityunjay Singh was involved in an incident where four police personnel were killed by CPI (Maoist) insurgents, and substantial unaccounted cash was recovered from his house.
The National Investigating Agency (NIA) had filed a chargesheet against Mrityunjay Singh and 33 others for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Despite the prosecution’s arguments, the High Court granted bail to Mrityunjay Singh on 30.01.2023, which the Union of India sought to overturn through this appeal.
The Additional Solicitor General argued that Mrityunjay Singh’s involvement in other criminal cases, along with his alleged association with terrorist elements and a history of threatening witnesses, warranted the cancellation of bail. However, Mrityunjay Singh’s counsel contended that the bail had been granted after careful consideration by the High Court and that none of the bail conditions had been violated.
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and examining the record, observed that Mrityunjay Singh had been granted bail over a year ago, and there was no evidence of bail conditions being breached. The court emphasized that bail should not be revoked without compelling reasons and noted Mrityunjay Singh’s previous bails in other cases.
The court reiterated the principles of bail, emphasizing that it should be granted based on broad probabilities regarding the accused’s involvement in the offense and not as a form of punishment. It stressed that bail conditions should not be violated, and any breach could lead to the cancellation of bail.
Regarding Mrityunjay Singh’s involvement in other cases, the court noted that he had been acquitted in one case and granted bail in others, indicating that his criminal antecedents did not warrant bail cancellation in the present case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no justification for interference with the High Court’s bail order. However, it allowed the prosecution to seek bail cancellation if any bail conditions were violated, affirming that observations made in the bail order should not influence the trial court’s decision on the case’s merits.
