Case Title: Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
According to the Supreme Court, a High Court within the scope of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution has the authority to issue bail in the right circumstances.
The court stated that the High Court must be cautious when using its authority to grant bail in an application under Article 226 based on the circumstances of each case. However, the High Court shouldn't refrain from using its authority where a citizen has been unlawfully deprived of their personal freedom due to an abuse of state power.
The court noted that the Bombay High Court failed to carry out its adjudicatory function on two fronts: first, by declining to determine prima facie whether an arguable case has been made out at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR; and second, by declining interim bail as a result of its failure to form an initial opinion on the first point.
The court ruled that in an appropriate instance, the High Court must take into account the following established elements while deciding whether to grant bail under Article 226:
The nature of the alleged offence, the accusation, and the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction.
Whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the accused is tampering with the witnesses or is a threat to the complainant or the witnesses?
The likelihood that the accused will flee from justice or the possibility of securing the accused's presence at the trial.
The history of and circumstances unique to the case.
The bench further stated that because this jurisdiction is not a fast replacement for recourse to the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, the High Court must exercise its authority with prudence and circumspection. It read:
"The petition before the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima facie been established. In considering such an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case.”
Relying upon Hema Mishra vs State of UP, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the bench held the following as justification for its decision to grant Arnab Goswami temporary bail:
"In the backdrop of these principles, it has become necessary to scrutinize the contents of the FIR in the case at hand. In this batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during the investigation or the trial. There is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or witnesses. Taking these factors into consideration, the order envisaged the release of the appellants on bail."