story
Q.11. In cases involving serious offences, is there an obligation on the part of the Court while granting bail, to give reasons in support of its order ?Ans.Yes. Even though detailed discussion on the merits of the case need not be undertaken, the Court has to give prima facie reasons in support of its order. (Vide –Para 5 of Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2005) 7 SCC 507 = 2005 KHC...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Q.11. In cases involving serious offences, is there an obligation on the part of the Court while granting bail, to give reasons in support of its order ?
Ans.Yes. Even though detailed discussion on the merits of the case need not be undertaken, the Court has to give prima facie reasons in support of its order. (Vide –
Para 5 of Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2005) 7 SCC 507 = 2005 KHC 1414 SC – 3 Judges - Y. K. Sabharwal, B. N. Srikrishna, C. K. Thakker - JJ;
Para 8 of Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. (2008) 16 SCC 753 = AIR 2009 SC 94 – Dr. Arijit Pasayat, C. K. Thakkar - JJ;
Para 13 of Vinod Singh Negi v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 13 = AIR 2019 SC 3911 – A. M. Sapre, R. Subhash Reddy - JJ).
The High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after due application of a Judicial mind following well established principles and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. (Vide paras 28 and 29 of Jagjit Singh v. Ashish Misra 2022 (3) KHC 449 (SC) – 3 Judges – N. V. Ramana – CJI, Surya Kant, Hima Kohli – JJ.)
Q.12. Is it not permissible for the Court while granting interim bail, to direct the petitioner to deposit a fixed amount and also to settle the dispute with the complainant ?
Ans.No. The Court can only dispose of the bail application on the merits. (Vide paras 2 and 3 of G. Selvakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal Nos: 4202 – 4203/ 2020 (SC) – L. Nageswara Rao, Ajay Rastogi - JJ.
Q.13. In cases exclusively triable by a Court of Session should the Magistrate while releasing the accused on bail bind him to appear before the Court of Session also as and when required?
Ans.Yes. See Section 209(b) and 441(3) Cr.P.C. See also Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 SC 1463).
Q.14. Section 56 Cr.P.C. enjoins that a person arrested shall be sent by the arresting Police Officer to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. But, Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. mandates that the arrested person shall be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate whether he has jurisdiction or not to try the case. How to reconcile between this apparent conflict ?
Ans.Section 56 is applicable to a Police Officer making an arrest. After the arrest, he has two options either to take or send the arrested person to the jurisdictional Magistrate or to the officer-in-charge of the Police station (SHO). Usually the arrested person is sent only to the SHO. Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. is applicable to the SHO who is obliged to send the accused (who is arrested and detained) to the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest whether such Magistrate is or is not having jurisdiction to try the case.
This is in conformity with the mandate of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Q.15. For releasing the accused on bail, is it necessary that the Magistrate should have jurisdiction to try the case or to commit the case?
Ans.Yes. The Court which is competent to grant bail is only the Court which is competent to try or commit the case. The nearest Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. can only order detention of the accused to custody and cannot grant bail unless he has jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides that such nearest Magistrate if not competent to try or commit the case, can, from to time, order detention of the accused up to 15 days at a time and thereafter, if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial and he considers further detention unnecessary, forward the accused to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial. (See Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.; Khaliq War v. State (1974 Crl.L.J. 526 (J&K) – S. Wasiuddin – J and Singeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar 1976 Crl.L.J. 1511 - S. Sarwar Ali, N. P. Singh – JJ.