If Bail Order Lacks Reasons, Prosecution Or Informant Can Challenge It Before Higher Forum : Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna set aside an order of Patna High Court granting bail to an accused, for being cryptic and devoid of relevant reasons.

Factual Background

The appellant/informant saw the respondent-accused killing her son in her house. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR against the respondent-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On an earlier occasion, the deceased was attacked by the accused and his accomplices, and as a result suffered a bullet injury. In view of the same the deceased had lodged an FIR against him.

After the informant made the concerned FIR, the respondent-accused absconded for seven months and also intimidated the informant to withdraw the informant or else he threatened to eliminate her entire family. In the light of these threats, the informant submitted a written complaint to the police, who immediately arrested the accused and he had been in judicial custody for nine months until he was released on bail.

The accused filed an application before the Sessions Court seeking bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur. By suppressing his criminal antecedents, he tried his luck before the Patna High Court and was granted bail in connection with the murder case. Eventually, the High Court granted him bail.

Contentions raised by the appellant

Advocate, Mr. Smarhar Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant/informant apprised the Court that in eight cases, the respondent has been the named accused. Out of these, three cases were still pending against the accused. It was further submitted that the accused, who was a habitual offender, was absconding for a long period of time and had been in custody for only nine months. Under the said circumstances, it was argued, the grant of bail by the High Court was in contravention of trite law, more so, the same being without assigning any relevant reasons.

Contentions raised by the respondent-accused

Senior Advocate, Mr. R. Basant, appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, asserted that he was falsely implicated in the case at hand. The weapon was recovered from accused no. 2, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased. It was brought to the notice of the Court that several cases were also pending against the deceased and his brother-in-law. It was argued that the respondent-accused was 350 kms away from the spot of crime on the fateful day, which was evident from the mobile phone details. Placing reliance on Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ­ (1978) 1 SCC 240, it was submitted that a court, while considering application seeking bail, ought not to enter into an in-depth analysis of the case and is also not required to provide lengthy reasons for granting bail. It was stressed upon that once bail is granted it can be cancelled only in rare cases.

Analysis of the Supreme Court

Relying on a catena of judgments on the principles of bail, more particularly, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat And Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 775, the Court observed that in similar facts therein, it had noted that the High Court had ignored the general principle for grant of bail in a heinous crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Citing Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu And Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Court noted that the period of custody though relevant had to be juxtaposed with totality of the circumstances.

The Court was of the view that while considering an application for grant of bail, the facts suggestive of the nature of the crime, the criminal antecedents and nature of punishment ought to be looked into. Furthermore, it observed that in order to grant bail, the Court is required to form a prima facie opinion in that regard, supported by reason, in view of the factual context of the matter.

"…a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused."

To consider the contention of the appellant that bail was granted by a cryptic order without assigning any cogent reason, the Court referred to Kranti Associates Private Limited And Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan And Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 and the principles culled out therein to opine that reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself.

"Thus, while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. It would be only a non speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum."

[Case Title: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar And Anr. SLP (Crl) No. 6335 of 2021]