Presumption Of Non-Application Of Mind If Bail Order Does Not Furnish Reasons: Supreme Court

The three-judge bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed thus while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's order granting bail to an accused of a murder. The Court also observed that the power of granting bail by the High Court is discretionary. The same has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

To provide a brief background, the State of Jharkhand had approached the Top Court against the grant of bail to the respondent, who, among other charges, was also accused for the offence of murder. The State, inter-alia, contended that the bail order passed by the High Court in a gruesome case of murder was a non-speaking one.

It may also be noted that as per the prosecution's stance, the respondent belonged to an extremist organization named TPC, operating in the State. He, along with other co-accused, had forcefully picked up the deceased from his house, and following this, the latter's dead body was recovered. Apart from this, the respondent remained absconded for seven years before he was taken into custody.

At the outset, the Court cited the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia &Another., 2019 INSC 1325, wherein the principles of granting bail in serious offences like murder were outlined. This also required the Court to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence.

Drawing its observations, the Top Court underscored the need to set aside the bail order of the High Court if the same has failed to consider relevant factors. To quote the order:

“Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a nonapplication of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record.”

After perusal of the impugned order, the Court opined that the High Court, while granting bail, failed to assign any reasons. Underlining, the duty of the Court to record reasons for its exercise of discretionary power, the Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Case Details: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND v. ANIL GANJHU., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2843 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Click here to read the order