The Supreme Court deemed the High Court’s ruling as “unusual” and “perverse,” criticizing its failure to comprehend the seriousness of the crime. The Court asserted that the settlement between the accused and the victim’s family shouldn’t justify granting bail.
This legal matter revolves around the 2022 Ahmedabad murder of Pravin Raval. Jayesh Parmar, the accused, was taken into custody and charged with the murder. However, the Gujarat High Court granted him bail after considering the settlement reached with the victim’s family.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the High Court’s neglect of the severity of the crime. It emphasized that murder is a grave offense and cannot be casually bailable. The Court underscored that a settlement between the accused and the victim’s family cannot serve as a basis for bail.
The Supreme Court has instructed the Gujarat High Court to reassess the accused’s bail plea in accordance with its decision.
The Supreme Court’s verdict is a positive step, demonstrating the judiciary’s intolerance for bail orders influenced by settlements between the accused and the victim’s family. The Court appropriately emphasized the necessity to evaluate the seriousness of the crime before granting bail, irrespective of any settlements between parties.
Furthermore, this ruling by the Supreme Court has broader implications, setting a precedent for other Indian courts. It conveys the message that bail shouldn’t be granted based on agreements between the accused and the victim’s family in cases involving severe crimes like murder. This development is promising as it will contribute to upholding justice in such instances.