Bail cannot be granted, especially to an accused in a heinous crime, as a “matter of course”. Courts should exercise their discretion in a “judicious manner”, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.
Besides, bail without giving a cogent reason in a cryptic order cannot be sustained, a Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna underscored.
The judgment, authored by Justice Nagarathna, was based on an appeal filed by the mother of a man who was shot dead by assailants. The dead man had been attacked by the same men, but escaped. The accused have a history of crime and had absconded for seven months after the murder. If convicted they would face life imprisonment or even death penalty. The Patna High Court, however, granted the accused bail after merely nine months in judicial custody. The bail order does not give any reasons for releasing the man on bail.
“Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained,” Justice Nagarathna noted.
‘Indicate reasons’
The judgment emphasised that every bail order should indicate the reasons for prima facie concluding the need for grant of bail, “particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence”.
“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,” the Bench said.
“Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind,” it surmised.
In case of crimes of a heinous nature, the grant of bail should be based on three considerations. They are, the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, the reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
