Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted by a cryptic and causal order without considering the material aspects of the case. The Apex Court further clarified that even if no new circumstances have developed after the grant of bail, the State is entitled to seek cancellation of bail, if it had been granted ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against the accused. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appeal filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to the accused without assigning reasons for the same. The portion in the bail order containing the 'reasoning', extracted by the Supreme Court is as under: "I have considered the submissions and perused the challan papers and the post mortem report, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner namely, Ram Narayan Jat S/o Shri Bhinva Ram shall be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with aforesaid FIR, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C."Taking exception to the HC order, the Supreme Court observed:"...while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum". Factual Background The appellant, the son of the deceased lodged the FIR on 08.12.2019 against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the FIR, on 08.12.2019 at around 4P.M. the accused assisted by his associates attacked and pinned the appellant's father to the ground and strangled him. The appellant has attributed the murder to a pre-existing enmity between the the accused and his brothers and the deceased. The post-mortem report recorded that the death was caused by asphyxiation. The accused was arrested on 10.12.2019 and was sent to judicial custody. The charge sheet was filed by the police before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognisance of the offence on 12.03.2020 and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court for trial. In the meanwhile, the accused filed applications seeking bail before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate which were rejected by orders dated 23.01.2020 and 06.03.2020. The application for bail filed under Section 439 of the CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge was rejected by order dated 12.03.2020. Subsequently, the accused preferred an application before the High Court which was allowed on 07.05.2020, enlarging him on bail. Contentions raised by the appellant Senior Advocate, Mr. R. Basant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the deceased was elected as the Deputy Sarpanch of Mandha Bhopawaspachar village, Jhotwara Tehsil, Jaipur in 2015 despite opposition from the accused and his family. The deceased was also being dissuaded by the accused and his brothers from contesting the elections to be held in 2020 and for the said purpose the deceased was visited by the accused and his brother on the morning of the fateful day. The Court was further apprised that the deceased was a person with disability. Mr. Basant emphasised that the High Court had not considered crucial aspects of the case: a. The gravity of the offence in view of the limitation of the deceased in defending himself. b. Previous enmity amongst the accused and his brothers and the deceased. c. The possibility of the accused, a person with political influence, absconding or threatening the witnesses or tampering with evidence. d. The accused was so influential that initially police were hesitant to register FIR. e. The accused was arrested only after the family of the deceased protested outside the police station. Moreover, it was contended that the High Court had granted bail in a cryptic manner without assigning any cogent reason in derogation of trite law, that too for an heinous offence punishable by either life imprisonment or death penalty. Contentions raised by the accused Advocate, Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary appearing on behalf of the accused denied the existence of past enmity asserted by the appellant. On the contrary, he submitted that the two families were cordial towards each other as had been recorded in the charge sheet. It was clarified that the...

Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside : Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags