2004 (8) TMI 745 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Grant of bail order - Non-application of mind by High Court in bail order -Offence punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ( IPC ) - HELD THAT - There is no definition of the word Bail in the Code although offences are classified as Bailable and Non-Boilable . Section 2(a) defines Bailable Offence to mean an offence which is known as bailable in the first schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force and Non-Boilable Offence means any other offence. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted above at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated. Above being the position the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court is clearly indefensible. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail bonds of the respondent No. 2 - accused are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to custody forthwith and in case he does not do so it shall be the duty of the respondent No. 1 - State to take him to custody immediately. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that after charge-sheet is placed and/or charge is framed the accused shall move for bail afresh. If it is so done it goes without saying the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law about which we express no opinion. Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of bail challenged, Non-application of mind by High Court in bail order

Background Facts:
- Deceased engaged in money lending, shot at by accused Meer Hasan and others
- Accused taken into custody based on statements by witnesses
- Accused filed bail application, rejected by Sessions Judge, granted by Single Judge

Appellant's Argument:
- Accused not named in FIR initially, later disclosed in statements under Section 161
- Charged under Sections 302/120B IPC, grant of bail obstructs justice

Respondent's Argument:
- Bail granted considering relevant aspects, no abuse of liberty since 5.8.2003

Court's Analysis:
- Bail defined as bailable and non-bailable offences
- High Court's order lacked application of mind, detailed examination not required for bail
- Factors to consider before granting bail: nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, witness tampering, prima facie satisfaction of the Court

Legal Precedents:
- Court must provide reasons for granting bail, non-reasoned orders indefensible
- Cryptic order of High Court set aside, bail bonds cancelled, accused directed to surrender
- No opinion expressed on case merits, accused can apply for bail after charge-sheet or framing of charges

Conclusion:
- Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside, accused directed to surrender
- Accused can apply for bail again based on own merit in accordance with law