Courts Should Not Be Swayed Only By Allegations In FIR When Deciding Bail: Delhi HC
🧾 Background and Principle
The First Information Report (FIR) is the document that sets the criminal law in motion and contains the initial allegations made by the complainant or the police. However, when courts consider bail applications, it is well settled that mere allegations in the FIR cannot be the sole basis for refusing bail.
Why? Because:
FIR is an unverified document, containing only the initial version of events.
Allegations may be exaggerated or false, made under stress or due to misunderstanding.
Bail is a right, not a punishment; it should not be denied on flimsy grounds.
Courts must look at the material on record, nature of allegations, and other factors like the possibility of tampering with evidence, the accused’s antecedents, and the gravity of the offence.
⚖️ Delhi High Court’s Stand on the Issue
The Delhi High Court has consistently ruled that courts must exercise caution and not mechanically refuse bail just because allegations appear grave in the FIR.
📌 Key Case:
Ranjeet Singh v. State (Delhi Police), 2022 (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
The accused was charged under serious sections involving assault and attempt to murder.
The FIR contained detailed allegations by the victim.
The Trial Court rejected bail relying largely on the gravity of allegations in the FIR.
Judgement Highlights:
The Delhi High Court quashed the bail rejection order and granted bail, stating:
FIR Allegations Are Not Gospel Truth
The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR need verification through investigation and trial. Courts should not refuse bail solely on the basis of these allegations without examining the overall facts.
Bail Should Be Granted If There Are No Strong Grounds to Detain
The Court highlighted that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. If the investigation is complete and there is no likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, bail should be granted.
Need for Material Beyond FIR
The Court emphasized that the prosecution must bring forth material beyond the FIR to justify continued custody.
Balancing Interests
While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, it balanced this against the accused’s right to liberty and held that bail refusal cannot be automatic.
💡 Important Extract from the Judgment
“The Court must not be swayed merely by the language or contents of the FIR. Allegations in the FIR are not evidence and cannot be treated as conclusive proof. The grant or refusal of bail depends on the facts of the case, material on record, and the overall circumstances.”
🧑⚖️ Other Supporting Precedents
The Delhi High Court’s view aligns with the Supreme Court’s long-standing position in:
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565
The Supreme Court held that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. Courts must consider facts beyond FIR and not reject bail mechanically.
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447
FIR allegations are only a starting point, and courts should assess the entire case material for bail decisions.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40
Bail decisions depend on facts, evidence, and the purpose of custodial interrogation, not mere allegations.
🔚 Summary
Allegations in FIR are only the initial allegations, not proof.
Courts must consider the entire material on record.
Bail should be the norm, unless strong reasons exist to deny it.
Mere seriousness of allegations in FIR cannot automatically lead to bail refusal.
Courts must balance the accused’s right to liberty with the interest of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments