2022 (4) TMI 1653 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular bail - appellant prosecutrix submits that the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent no. 2 accused in a mechanical manner without any reasoning - HELD THAT - This Court has in a catena of judgments outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section 439 CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1977 (12) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT this Court has held as to the various parameters which must be considered while granting bail. This Court held The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many valuable factors cannot be exhaustively set out. The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However certain important factors that are always considered inter alia relate to prima facie involvement of the accused nature and gravity of the charge severity of the punishment and the character position and standing of the accused - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial. This Court has consistently upheld the necessity of reasoned bail orders with a special emphasis on matters involving serious offences. In the present case respondent no. 2 accused has been accused of committing the grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years. The fact that the respondent no. 2 accused is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases registered against him has not even found mentioned in the impugned order. Further the High Court has failed to consider the influence that the respondent no. 2 accused may have over the prosecutrix as an elder family member. The period of imprisonment being only three months is not of such a magnitude as to push the Court towards granting bail in an offence of this nature. Conclusion - The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and does not suggest any application of mind. There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail where the Courts make a general observation that the facts and the circumstances have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the High Court of Rajasthan exercised its discretion appropriately under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when granting bail to respondent no. 2 accused, who was charged with serious offenses, including rape and sexual assault under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's order was reasoned and in compliance with established legal principles governing the grant of bail.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework for granting bail is primarily governed by Section 439 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court referenced several precedents, including Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), which outlines the parameters for granting bail, such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the accused's position relative to the victim, likelihood of fleeing justice, and potential for tampering with evidence. Other significant cases cited include State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, which emphasize the need for a reasoned order and the cautious exercise of judicial discretion.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order granting bail was cryptic and lacked any detailed reasoning or reference to the specific facts of the case. The Court emphasized that reasoning is the lifeblood of the judicial system, and orders must be reasoned to avoid arbitrariness. The order should reflect consideration of relevant factors, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Key Evidence and Findings

The chargesheet indicated serious allegations against respondent no. 2 accused, including repeated rape and sexual assault on his minor niece over several years. The accused had a history of criminal behavior, with nearly twenty cases registered against him, some resulting in convictions. These factors were not adequately considered by the High Court in its bail order.

Application of Law to Facts

The Supreme Court applied the principles from established precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously. The absence of reasoning in the bail order suggested a non-application of mind, rendering the order arbitrary and unjustified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellant and the State argued that the High Court's order was mechanical and lacked consideration of the gravity of the offenses and the accused's criminal history. The respondent no. 2 contended that the High Court had appropriately exercised its discretion and that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with bail orders. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's arguments, highlighting the lack of reasoning in the High Court's order.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order was unsustainable due to its failure to consider relevant factors and provide reasoning. The order granting bail was set aside, and respondent no. 2 was directed to surrender.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of reasoned orders in bail matters, especially in serious offenses. It held that the High Court's order suffered from non-application of mind and arbitrariness due to the lack of detailed reasoning. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously and not mechanically.

"Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness."

The Court reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts should not ordinarily interfere with bail orders unless they are perverse, unjustified, or arbitrary. It underscored the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the accused's criminal history, and the potential influence over the victim when granting bail.

The final determination was to set aside the High Court's order granting bail to respondent no. 2 accused, emphasizing the need for detailed and reasoned judicial orders in the context of serious criminal allegations.