This article pertaining to “An analysis of the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Darshan & Ors is written by A.Rangadham, Superintendent [Authorized Representative], Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.
The Supreme Court was tasked with the challenge raised by the State regarding grant of bail to Sri Darshan, the actor charged with murder, and the Supreme Court has given a complete darshan of the law governing bail and more importantly the law relating to written grounds of arrest.
Grant of Bail and its cancellation – The considerations for grant of bail and its cancellation are not identical. Grant of bail involves a preventive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty. Cancellation of bail entails a review of the order granting bail either (i) on account of supervening circumstances or (ii) because the original order is flawed. Bail granted without application of mind to factors such as gravity of offence, strength of evidence or conduct and antecedents of the accused may be cancelled. A bail order that is perverse, unjustified or legally untenable is vulnerable to interference.
Bail annulment or cancelled – These are two distinct categories. Annulment of bail is due to legal infirmity of the order while cancellation / revocation of bail is due to post-grant misconduct or supervening circumstances.
Annulment of bail orders – This refers to the appellate or revisional power to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles. It is concerned with defects existing at the time the bail was granted. Consideration in this regard are – (i) Nature of accusations; (ii) Severity of the punishment; (ii) The strength of the evidence; (iv) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with; (v) Threat to the complainant; (vi) Consideration of irrelevant materials; (vii) Omission of relevant considerations; (viii) antecedents of the accused; etc. Post-Bail good conduct of the accused, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order. The length of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail when the gravity of offense alleged is severe. These factors cannot cure the fundamental defects in an order granting bail.
Cancellation / revocation of Bail – Grant of Bail to the accused merely shifts custody of the accused from the State to the sureties. The grounds for cancellation of bail is justified on the following grounds – (i) Interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice; (ii) evasion of the course of Justice; (iii) Abuse of the concession of bail; (iv) Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (v) Engages in similar criminal activity post bail; (vi) Interferes with or obstructs the investigation; (vii) Tampers with evidence are influences witnesses; (viii) Intimidates or threatens witnesses; (ix) Violates the conditions imposed; (x) Evades the control of sureties; (xi) New circumstances that have cropped up since the grant of bail; etc.
Personal liberty vis-à-vis Interest of society – While personal liberty [Art. 21] is a cherished constitutional value, it is not absolute. Liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interests of society. Deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person and creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. However, society is wedded to the rule of law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others’ rights. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialized. Individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. Certain restrictions or limitations, on the exercise of personal liberty, by the State or such human agency, are necessary elements, in the interest of liberty of a well-ordered society or societal interest.
The broad principles for grant of bail – Nature of the charge, nature of evidence, the punishment to which the party is liable, the likelihood of the appellant polluting the process of justice, the past record of the applicant etc. The tenet of bail has to be exercised on the basis of the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. Bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning. While elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order dehors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. Mere filing of a charge sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offense, the incriminating material gathered during investigation etc. Even when the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence it is not a valid ground to release the accused on bail especially where a complete chain of circumstances has been prima facie established.
Delay in furnishing the Grounds of arrest – This factor cannot constitute a valid ground for grant of bail and is devoid of merit. The Constitutional [Art 22(1)] and statutory framework [Sec. 50(1) of Cr.P.C] mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. But neither provision describes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. Reference is made to Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2025 SCC Online SC 456] and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [MANU/SC/0773/2025 : 2025 INSC 768]. These decisions are post – Pankaj Bansal decisions, which clarify that individualized grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
Absence of written grounds of arrest – Section 50 of Cr.P.C is mandatory. The consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test while examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. {Note – There appears to be a departure from the judgments passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India – 2023:INSC:866 : (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2024) 8 SCC 254}. Once the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the accused was aware of the reasons for arrest; that they were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusation, it cannot be claimed that prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, at best, a curable defect, and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail.
Detailed examination of evidence – The courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The courts cannot conduct a mini trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. The credibility of the witnesses and the evidence lie within the domain of the trial court.
Conclusion – This judgment has comprehensively encapsulated the understanding of bail, and has interestingly propounded to adopt a prejudice-oriented test regarding the absence of written grounds of arrest and held that it is a curable defect. This judgement brings out the principle that an accused cannot be allowed to escape the clutches of law on mere technical grounds.
Read More: Use of Common/Assigned Brand Names Does Not Bar SSI Exemption Benefit: CESTAT
