Supreme Court expounds: Order rejecting/granting bail, if passed without recording reasoning carries presumption of non-application of mind. Read Judgment

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case titled as Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. has held that, “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. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.”

The present appeal was filed before Supreme Court assailing the order of High Court of Rajasthan of granting bail to respondent; with similar order, bail was also granted to other 4 accused in the present case. The brief facts of the case are appellant lodged FIR against respondent and charge sheet was filed against the five accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1908.

The Appellant’s nephew- Akhilesh (deceased) and deceased’s friend Aashish after quarrel were beaten with rods by five accused with intention to kill. The appeal filed by the Appellant against four other co-accused were tagged with the present appeal.

After the case was registered accused/respondent moved bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge and same was rejected on 10 April 2019. In a subsequent appeal by respondent before High Court of Rajasthan, his bail application was allowed.

The counsel on behalf of appellant contended that case involves a gruesome murder and High Court of Rajasthan has not justified the granting of bail to accused.

Supreme Court observed that court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record; it is to only assess whether a case is fit for the grant of bail or not. Court must examine whether prima facie ground exists to believe that the accused has committed the offense.

In the case, where bail has been granted by a lower court, an 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; the power to grant bail is conferred by Section 439 of the CrPC.

Apex Court ordinarily do not interfere with an order of High Court granting bail. However, if lower court fails to consider relevant factors, Apex Court may assess whether order suffers from a non-application of mind and justifiably set aside the order granting bail.

The final assessment of High Court was recorded in single paragraph, which reads as - “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.”

With respect to above assessment, Supreme Court held that, 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. It held that it is the duty of the Judge to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here