Need To Record Reasons While Granting Bail In Heinous Crimes, Mechanical Bail Orders Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

Emphasising that bail orders in serious criminal cases cannot be passed in a cursory or mechanical manner, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that courts are duty-bound to indicate reasons reflecting a prima facie satisfaction while granting bail, particularly where the accused is charged with grave offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing a bail plea filed by several accused persons facing trial for offences including murder and attempt to murder, reiterated that the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously and supported by cogent reasons, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, nature of evidence, and stage of trial.Citing Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pallu Yadav and anther, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the court recorded, “… Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence”.The Court was dealing with a bail application filed by Murad Ali and others, who are accused in a case arising out of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 364, 427, 147 and 148 IPC along with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused have been in custody for over two and a half years and sought their release on the ground that the prosecution witnesses examined so far did not attribute any specific role to them.Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the statements of the three prosecution witnesses examined so far, including the injured witness, did not specifically establish the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. He further submitted that despite prolonged incarceration of over two and a half years, only a handful of witnesses had been examined, entitling the accused to bail.It was argued that the allegations against the petitioners were general in nature and that continued detention amounted to a violation of their right to personal liberty and speedy trial.Opposing the bail plea, Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti submitted that there was no delay attributable to the prosecution and that the trial progressed in accordance with law. He pointed out that the delay was occasioned largely due to multiple arrests of absconding accused at different stages and adjournments sought by the defence during the stage of framing of charge.After examining the record, the High Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were extremely grave, involving abduction, brutal assault and murder. The Court observed that the statements of eyewitnesses, including the injured witness Bashir Ahmed, clearly narrated the sequence of events and the role attributed to the accused persons during the assault.The Court cautioned that while a detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, it stated that courts must examine whether prima facie material exists against the accused.“The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though a detailed examination of evidence is not required, there is a need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail is being granted, particularly where the accused is charged with having committed a serious offence.”, the court remarked. Relying upon several pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the High Court underscored that bail orders must reflect due application of mind to the nature of allegations, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the overall impact on the administration of justice.Dealing with the contention regarding delay in trial, the Court noted that the charge sheet was initially filed in January 2023 and that several supplementary charge sheets were necessitated due to the arrest of absconding accused at later stages. The Court further observed that multiple adjournments were sought by the defence itself during the charge stage.The Court found no deliberate delay on the part of the prosecution and observed that the examination of witnesses had commenced after framing of charges, with key eyewitnesses yet to be examined.“At this stage, it cannot be said that there is a total absence of evidence against the petitioners. Any contradiction in testimony cannot be evaluated now, as doing so would amount to prejudging the merits of the case.”While dismissing the bail plea, the High Court reminded the trial court of its duty to ensure a speedy trial and directed that unnecessary adjournments should not be granted to either side. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.Case Title: Murad Ali & Ors Vs UT Of J&K Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 72Click Here ...

Need To Record Reasons While Granting Bail In Heinous Crimes, Mechanical Bail Orders Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Need To Record Reasons While Granting Bail In Heinous Crimes, Mechanical Bail Orders Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers