'Bail Orders Must Be Backed By Reasons Considering Vital Aspects': Supreme Court Sets Aside 'Casual & Cryptical' HC Order

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Justice Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against Rajasthan HC which had granted bail to the respondents involved in a case of honour killing.

Settting the "cryptic" and "casual" orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused, the Supreme Court observed :

“While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.”

CONTENTIONS

The appellant submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without considering the active involvement of respondents and the heinous nature of the crime where they could face even life imprisonment/death for the murder of the deceased.

He further submitted that bail was granted without any reasoning in a perverse manner in spite of overwhelming material pointing towards the guilt of the respondents.

The counsel for the state also submitted that there were eyewitnesses and even CCTV footage where respondents were fleeing the crime scene.

On the other hand, the party respondents contended that even if the alleged crimes are of serious nature, they would be entitled to bail if they were not involved in the crime. They submitted that there was no evidence to prove that they hit the deceased and shot him.

They further submitted that when the woman witness turned hostile, they were already in judicial custody. So, it's impossible that they could’ve influenced the witness.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court perused the bail orders passed by the HC which noted “Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bill to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr. P.C”

The Court expressed displeasure at the fact that bail was granted by HC in a very casual manner without any reasoning. It only relied on the testimony of the woman who turned hostile which is not a consideration for granting bail. It held that not even a single material aspect of the case was considered by HC.

“High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning” observed Justice Nagarathna in the judgment.

The court referred to a recent judgment in Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55 where it was held that “an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court”.

The court reiterated the factors to be taken into consideration for bail, namely the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. It observed that “while the liberty of an individual is important, the courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused”.

The court upon perusal of the chargesheet and materials brought on record noted how the deceased was traced, the reconnaissance done by respondents before the incident and the manner of their participation. Based upon this, the supreme court was convinced that at least prima facie there’s a case pointing towards the guilt of the respondent.

The court opined that there is a possibility that respondents may influence witnesses since one of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

Therefore, the supreme court set aside the judgment and asked the respondents to surrender.

Case title: Rohit Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Headnote

Section 439, CrPC- Bail- The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence(para 18)

This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal(para 19)

An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India as held in Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan(2022). (para 20)

While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused. (para 22)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment