The Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded that when an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish reasons, there is a presumption of non-application of mind which may require court intervention.
Anil Ganjhu was accused of forcefully picking up the deceased and after the deceased was picked up, his dead body was found a couple days after. It was almost 7 years after the registration of FIR, that the police was able to apprehend the Respondent.
The matter reached before the Top Court as High Court had granted bail to the respondent which was opposed by the Appellant herein on the grounds that the order of the High Court was a non-speaking order and that too in connection with a gruesome murder.
The Apex Court ruled that,
“the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, and such power has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non- application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record.”
Noting that the High Court did not furnish any reasons for granting bail to the Respondent who was absconding for several years, the Bench concluded that the order granting bail was non-speaking and required intervention of this Court, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand v. Anil Ganjhu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2843 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Mr. Saiyad Uruj Abbas, Mr. Farrukh Rashid, Mr. Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Mr. Abhishek Yadav
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
