The Supreme court takes cognizance of cryptic bail orders by High courts
Supreme court while taking the cognizance of mysterious bail orders passed by the high courts in several cases expressed concerns regarding the ‘recent trend’ which the courts were following for passing bail orders, without considering the ratio decidendi which is the pivotal element for passing any orders, judgements or decrees.
The court observed that -In this neoteric trend of passing such an order of granting or not granting bail, where the court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case but no specific reasons were provided which causes the passing of the orders by the court. In the case of Y. vs the state of Rajasthan, where a man was accused of raping his niece. The allegation against the offender was that he had called the plaintiff to his room and forcibly raped her on two different occasions. After three months of the arrest of the accused, the high court granted the bail to the accused which was appealed by the victim to the Apex court upon the contentions that the high court have mistaken in granting bail to the court by only observing facts and circumstances of the case without providing any reasoning to it. On the appeal by the victim to the apex court, the bench comprising of Chief justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari observed that while passing the order High court has not considered any reasonable factors for grant of bail. The bench said that – “Reasoning is the life & blood of the judicial system. Every order mandatorily reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. One of the pivotal elements for granting any orders or judgements shall be Ratio decidendi otherwise the orders or judgement may be considered arbitrary and unreasonable. Ratio decidendi or reasoned decision is the basic concept of rule of law as well as the principle of law which every court is bonded to follow and maintain while granting any orders. The absence of Ratio decidendi in any orders or judgments may lead to a violation of Natural justice which is the basic structure of the constitution.
The court observed that – a recent trend of passing orders for granting or refusing to grant bail, where the court makes general observations that fact and circumstances of the case have been considered – such a situation continues despite various judgements of this court wherein this court disapproves such practices. (Reference to Mahi pal vs. Rajesh Kumar,2020), Where the court held that- where it takes into account the application of bail and fails to consider relevant factors the appellate court may justifiably set aside the orders granting bail. An appellant court is required to consider whether the order of bail suffers from non-application of mind or is not borne out of evidentiary record. The appellate court will interfere with the orders of granting bail to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified, or arbitrary and an application for the cancellation of order prima facia looks at emerging circumstances that have occurred justifying cancellation. The bench also mentions some parameters which must be considered while granting bail – whether there is any reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment in the event of detention, character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, danger, of course, of justice, being frustrated by a grant of bail.
The court in its judgement mentions that the appeal against Rajasthan's high court order for granting bail to the accused allowed is cryptic and does not involve any application of mind, the order was passed without mentioning any reasons. The High Court has failed to consider the impact that the accused may have over the victim as an elder family member. The fact that the accused is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases already registered against him has not even found mentioned in the impugned order. The period of conviction being only three months is not of such magnitude as to push the court towards granting bail in an offence of such a nature. Therefore, the court ordered that the uncle shall be taken into custody and scowled Rajasthan high court for not following elementary parameters.
Tags : # Delhi # supreme court # Rajasthan # high court #leaders