In a recent legal case, the court scrutinized the grant of bail to the accused, emphasizing the necessity for judges to provide reasoned decisions. The importance of proper consideration of relevant factors in bail orders, especially in serious offenses like murder, was highlighted. This case sheds light on the significance of judicial review in bail granting processes, emphasizing the need for adherence to established principles and parameters. Stay tuned for a deep dive into the court’s legal analysis on this critical issue.
Facts
- The FAC part of the judgement focuses on the analysis of the facts of the case
- The court examines the evidence presented by both parties in detail
- It discusses the relevant legal principles that apply to the case
- The court may make findings of fact based on this analysis
- This part of the judgement forms the basis for the legal conclusions reached by the court
- The present appeal is against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2021 granting bail to respondent no. 2.
- The counsel for the appellant argues that the High Court granted bail to the accused without providing any reasoning.
- The grant of bail was considered to be mechanical in nature according to the appellant-prosecutrix.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and has been in custody since 30.05.2021.
- It is contended that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offences alleged against the respondent no. 2 – accused, who has a history of nearly twenty criminal cases pending against him.
- The petitioner’s counsel urges the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to set aside the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 – accused.
- Respondent no. 2 – accused has 20 criminal cases registered against him with convictions in some.
- Accused has a history of cases related to murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, dacoity, etc.
- Petitioner’s counsel argues that the High Court order granting bail is cryptic and should be set aside.
- Prosecutrix’s statement was recorded during trial, showing improvements.
- Trial conclusion may be delayed, and the petitioner is a habitual offender booked in PASA.
- Ruling of High Court granting bail to accused should be set aside.
- Despite not expressing an opinion on the case merits, the court deems it just to grant bail to the petitioner.
- Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, while the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
- Accused faces serious charges of rape and sexual assault on his minor niece for several years.
- No new evidence presented to warrant interference with the High Court’s bail decision.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The High Court and Sessions Court must grant bail after applying a judicial mind and following established principles.
- The discretionary power under Section 439 CrPC must be exercised appropriately.
- Various parameters must be considered while granting bail.
- Appellate courts need to assess if the bail order shows a proper application of mind and consideration of evidence.
- The discretion in granting bail is not unfettered, as held by the Court.
- The bail order in this case appears to have been granted mechanically without proper consideration.
- Factors justifying bail, especially in serious cases like murder, need to be stated.
- The order granting bail should be reasoned and not arbitrary.
- Reasoning in bail orders is fundamental in our judicial system, especially in serious offenses.
- Appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with bail orders by the High Court.
- The impugned bail order lacks reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.
- The accused in this case faces serious charges under multiple sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
- The habitual offender status and past cases against the accused were not mentioned in the bail order.
- The accused is alleged to have committed a grievous offense of raping his young niece.
- The influence of the accused over the prosecutrix as a family member was not considered by the High Court.
- The lack of reasoning in the bail order is a significant issue in this case.
- Reasoned decisions by Judges are crucial, and interference in bail orders by the High Court should be rare.
- Factors for granting bail include nature of the offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of absconding, and influencing witnesses.
- High Court must provide reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offence cases.
- Failure to consider relevant factors in bail orders may lead to setting aside of the order by appellate courts.
- Factors like accused’s character and involvement in the offence play a role in granting bail.
- Interference with bail orders by Appellate Court is done cautiously as it involves individual liberty.
- Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis of their conclusion when granting bail.
- Granting bail involves considering the liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution and the interests of the criminal justice system.
- Those who commit crimes should not be afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.
Decision
- Respondent no. 2, the accused, is directed to surrender within one week from the receipt of the order.
- Failure to surrender will result in the concerned police authorities taking him into custody.
- The impugned order passed by the High Court has been set aside.
- The Criminal Appeal has been allowed, and the bail bonds stand cancelled.
Case Title: Ms. Y Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2022 INSC 431)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000649-000649 / 2022
