The Supreme Court while pulling up High Courts, has deprecated the practice of granting bail in mechanical manner, devoid of required reasoning.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari while deciding an appeal observed that there is not 'an exhaustive list' of factors to be considered while deciding bail but few basic principles that are needed to be upheld.
Aggrieved of the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused, the prosecutrix preferred the present appeal to contend that High Court did not consider the facts of the case before it, more particularly, the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed and the fact that the accused is a hardened criminal with nearly twenty criminal cases pending against him.
The Court at the outset discussed the facts of the case and took note of the allegations of rape levelled at the accused. It then went on to state that there are catena of judgments which has outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section 439, CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail.
It cited Gurcharan Singh & Ors Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1977 Latest Caselaw 229 SC wherein the Court has decided as to the various parameters which must be considered while granting bail.
"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, interalia, 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."
It further mentioned State Through C.B.I. Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 Latest Caselaw 502 SC.
The Court stated that obvious fact that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case is not required as such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial.
Further noting that 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, it mentioned Constitutional Bench Judgement in Bihar Legal Support Society Vs. The Chief Justice of India & ANR, 1986 Latest Caselaw 244 SC .
Particularly referring to Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashis Chatterjee & ANR., 2010 Latest Caselaw 823 SC factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are presribed, the Court extracted and reiterated the relevant segment.
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
Additionally, the Court mentioned rulings in MAHIPAL vs. RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1205 SC, Jagjeet Singh Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 Latest Caselaw 315 SC.
Noting that the High Court didn't exercise its discretion in a proper manner and the impugnend order was passed without due application of mind, the Court further cited relevant cases required to be looked while considering matters of granting of bail including Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ANR., 2015 Latest Caselaw 645 SC, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & ANR, 2005 Latest Caselaw 97 SC.
It remarked that Court has consistently upheld the necessity of reasoned bail orders, with a special emphasis on matters involving serious offences and added that granting bail in cryptic manner has become a trend.
"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."
Case Title: Ms. Y vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 649 of 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No. 7893 of 2021)
Coram: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
