Bail principles: Explained
18. This Court has, on several occasions discussed the factors to be considered by a Court while deciding a bail application. 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 release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. While such a list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh- [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ; 12 Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi– [(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – [(2018) 12 SCC 129].
19. 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, vide Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh- [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli)– [(2021) 6 SCC 230] ; Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (supra).
20. Reference may also be made to recent decisions of this Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan– [2022 SCC OnLine SC 30] and Jaibunisha vs. Meharban– [(2022) 5 SCC 465], wherein, on engaging in an elaborate discussion of the case law cited supra and after duly acknowledging that liberty of individual is an invaluable right, it has been 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 while exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
21. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself,” is also apposite.
22. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. 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.
23. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned order above. At the outset, we observe that the extracted portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of the High Court while granting bail. As noted from the afore cited judgments, it is not necessary for a Court to assign elaborate reasons or engage in a roving inquiry as to the merits of the prosecution’s case while granting bail, particularly, when the trial is at the initial stages and the allegations against the accused would not have been crystalised as such. Elaborate details cannot be recorded so as to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an Order on an application for grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as 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 with the evidence; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
xxx
25. While we are conscious of the fact that a Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the 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-accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning.
Cancelled bail
26. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in light of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is a fit case for the grant of bail to the respondents-accused, given the seriousness of the allegations against them. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents-accused. Hence, the impugned judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
27. The respondents-accused are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.
Party
ROHIT BISHNOI vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2078 OF 2023 – 24th JULY, 2023.
