Bail – Necessity of reasoned bail orders, especially in matters involving serious offences – In the present case, respondent no.2 was accused of committing the grievous offence of raping his young niece of nineteen years – Held: High Court, while granting bail to respondent no.2, did not consider any of the relevant factors for grant of bail and did not advert to the actual facts of the case – In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the order of High Court – Fact that respondent no.2 was a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases were registered against him was not even mentioned in the order of High Court – Order of High Court was cryptic, and did not suggest any application of mind, and, accordingly set aside – Judgment / Order – Reasoned order.
Bail – Interference with – By Appellate forum – Scope – Held: Once bail has been granted, the Appellate Court is usually slow to interfere with the same as it pertains to the liberty of an individual. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Considerations on basis of which discretion u/s.439, CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail – Discussed – Held: Grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case – There is no strait jacket formula – However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused – At the stage of granting bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case – Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial – Bail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Issue relating to whether the High Court exercised discretionary power u/s.439 CrPC in granting bail appropriately – Held: Such an assessment is different from deciding whether circumstances subsequent to the grant of bail made it necessary to cancel the same – The first situation requires the Court to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary – On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation – Bail – Cancellation of bail.
Judgment / Order – Reasoned order – Necessity of – Held: Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system – An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness.
Bail – Recent trend of orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where Courts make a general observation that “the facts and the circumstances” have been considered and no specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court – Such a practice has been disapproved in various judgments of the Supreme Court – Judgment / Order – Reasoned order. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial. Once bail has been granted, the Appellate Court is usually slow to interfere with the same as it pertains to the liberty of an individual. [Paras 9, 10 and 11][33-B-D]
2.1. In the present case, a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court does not suggest that the Court has considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail. Apart from the general observation that the facts and circumstances of the case have been taken into account, nowhere have the actual facts of the case been adverted to. There appears to be no reference to the factors that ultimately led the High Court to grant bail. In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the impugned order. [Paras 16, 17][36-C-D; 37-C-D]
2.2. Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness. [Para 18][37-D]
2.3. This Court has consistently upheld the necessity of reasoned bail orders, with a special emphasis on matters involving serious offences. In the present case, respondent no.2 has been accused of committing the grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years. The fact that the respondent no.2 is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases registered against him has not even found mentioned in the impugned order. Further the High Court has failed to consider the influence that the respondent no.2 may have over the prosecutrix as an elder family member. The period of imprisonment, being only three months, is not of such a magnitude as to push the Court towards granting bail in an offence of this nature. [Para 21][38-E-G]
2.4. The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that “the facts and the circumstances” have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. [Paras 22, 23][38-G-H; 39-A]
2.5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Respondent no.2- accused is directed to surrender, failing which, the concerned police authorities shall take him into custody. [Para 24][39-E]
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767 : [1987] 1 SCR 295 – followed. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : [1978] 2 SCR 358; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; and Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. (Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022); Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC
508 : [2014] 12 SCR 453 ; Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 : [2001] 3 SCR 432; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; and Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna, (2009) 1 SCC 678 : [2008] 17 SCR 1348 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.