Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Grant/Rejection of bail – Determining factors – Held: The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important – No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail – At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused – That is a matter for trial – However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Where bail has been granted by a lower court – Scope of interference – Held: Appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Bail – Power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail vis-a-vis application for the cancellation of bail – Determining factors – Held: The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail – The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail – The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified – On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.

Judicial discipline: Reasoned/Speaking order while granting/rejecting bail – It is a fundamental premise of open justice that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed – Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done – The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment – Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice – Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion – Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind – Bail.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. [Para 14][539-G-H; 540-A-C]

2. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. [Paras 15, 16][540-E-F; 541-D]

3. The findings of the post-mortem report was that a total of twenty-seven ante-mortem injuries were recorded of which seven were found to be inflicted on the head. This led the members of the medical board to conclude that the cause of death was coma brought about by the result of the head injuries. It was contended for the first respondent that the deceased fell from the bike and sustained injuries which led to his death. However, it is not for the court to assess in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding on a chain of causation. A court assessing a plea of bail is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused and not conclude that the alleged crime was in fact committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of the friend of the deceased who was allegedly present with the deceased at the time of the incident was recorded under Section 161. The statement details the alleged incident and names all five accused, attributing to them the common intention to kill the deceased. It was stated that the accused thereafter drove away with the bike of the deceased. [Paras 17-18][542-A, D-F]

4. The order passed by the High Court failed to notice material facts and shows a non-application of mind to the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances referred to earlier which ought to have been taken into consideration. The High Court has erred in not considering material relevant to the determination of whether the accused were to be enlarged on bail. The order of the High Court enlarging the accused on bail is erroneous and liable to be set aside. [Paras 20-21][543-G-H; 544A]

5. There is another reason why the judgment of the Single Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. In the instant case, the assessment by the High Court is essentially contained in a single paragraph which reads: Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.” Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. The perfunctory analysis by the High Court in the instant case cannot be sustained. [Paras 22-23, 25-26][544-B-E; 545-B-D]

Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC

446 : [2012] 7 SCR 584; Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 16 SCC 797 [2013] 11 SCR 273; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : [2014] 12 SCR 453; Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 : [2017] 4 SCR 373; State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516; Neeru

Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 15 SCC 422; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC

528 – relied on