Bail Cancellation Overturned: Supreme Court Restores Bail in Murder Case

The case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Anr. involves the issue of bail cancellation in a murder case. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 7, 2020, ruled in favor of the appellants by overturning the Telangana High Court’s decision to cancel their bail. The case highlights key legal principles regarding bail, cancellation of bail, and the necessity of strong grounds before interfering with a lower court’s bail order.

The judgment reiterates that bail should only be canceled under exceptional circumstances, such as witness intimidation, interference with the investigation, or a perverse order by the lower court granting bail. It also emphasizes that vague allegations cannot serve as the basis for canceling bail.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a dispute involving the Fishermen Cooperative Society in Chamanapalli village, Karimnagar District, Telangana. The deceased, Bojja Thirupathi, was the Chairman of the society. The appellants, who were members of the same society, had their memberships canceled, preventing them from carrying out fishing activities in certain village tanks.

Three years prior to the incident, there had been an attack on the deceased at the village Panchayat office, allegedly by the appellants, leading to a pending criminal case. On April 19, 2019, the deceased was reportedly attacked again by the appellants while inspecting a village tank. He was allegedly assaulted with stones and succumbed to his injuries.

The police registered an FIR (No. 155/2019) under Sections 148, 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at the Karimnagar Rural Police Station. The appellants were arrested and later granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, under certain conditions.

Bail Conditions Imposed by the Sessions Court

The appellants had to appear before the police every alternate day between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
They were prohibited from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar.
They were forbidden from influencing or tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Telangana & Complainant)

The Sessions Court had not properly considered the material evidence before granting bail.
The accused had criminal antecedents that were overlooked.
They were threatening witnesses and interfering with the case after being released on bail.

Arguments by the Respondents (Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors.)

The High Court had no compelling reason to interfere with the Sessions Court’s bail order.
There was no specific allegation against any of the accused except one (A6) who allegedly strangulated the deceased with a towel.
The complainant’s allegations of witness intimidation were vague and lacked specific details about which accused were involved.

High Court’s Decision

The Telangana High Court canceled the bail, stating that:

The Sessions Court did not properly evaluate the evidence before granting bail.
The appellants had prior criminal records.
There were allegations that they were threatening witnesses after being released.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order and reinstated the bail granted by the Sessions Court. The Court held:

Bail can only be canceled in cases where there is clear evidence of misuse of liberty.
The order of the Sessions Court was not perverse and indicated that the trial court had considered all necessary materials before granting bail.
Vague allegations of witness intimidation cannot be the sole basis for canceling bail.
The complainant’s petition lacked specific details on which accused had attempted to tamper with evidence.

Legal Precedents Cited

Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) – Established that bail can be canceled if the accused misuses liberty, interferes with investigation, tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or attempts to flee.
Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) – Reiterated that rejection of bail stands on a different footing than cancellation, which interferes with personal liberty.
State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh (2001) – Clarified that courts must balance personal liberty with the necessity of preventing misuse of bail.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications:

Reaffirms that bail cannot be canceled without strong justification.
Emphasizes that allegations of witness intimidation must be specific and supported by evidence.
Protects the personal liberty of individuals from arbitrary interference by appellate courts.
Ensures that lower courts carefully evaluate evidence before granting or canceling bail.

The judgment highlights the importance of safeguarding individual rights while balancing the interests of justice in criminal cases.

Petitioner Name: State of Telangana & Anr..
Respondent Name: Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Chamanapalli village, Karimnagar District, Telangana.
Judgment Date: 07-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Telangana & vs Myakala Dharmarajam Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category