2019 Supreme(SC) 1323

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Mahipal – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1843 to 1847 of 2019 @SLP (Crl.) No. 6339, 6340, 6341, 7052, 7053 of 2019
Decided on : 05-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Determination of whether a case is fit for grant of bail involves balancing of numerous factors, among which nature of offence, severity of punishment and a prima facie view of involvement of accused are important.
(2) Where bail has been granted by lower court, appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by principles set out for exercise of the power to set aside bail.
(3) Where order refusing or granting bail does not furnish reasons that inform the decision, there is presumption of non-application of mind which may require intervention of Apex Court.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Grant of – Power to grant bail under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude – Though grant of bail involves exercise of discretionary power of court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – Determination of whether a case is fit for grant of bail involves balancing of numerous factors, among which nature of offence, severity of punishment and a prima facie view of involvement of accused are important – No strait jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for grant or rejection of bail. (Paras 11 and 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Determining factors – At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, court is not required to enter into detailed analysis of evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt commission of crime by accused – That is a matter for trial – However, Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that accused had committed offence and on a balance of considerations involved, continued custody of accused sub-serves purpose of criminal justice system – Where bail has been granted by lower court, appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by principles set out for exercise of the power to set aside bail. (Para 12)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Grant of bail – Provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon liberty of an individual – Apex Court does not ordinarily interfere with order of High Court granting bail – However, where discretion of High Court to grant bail has been exercised without due application of mind or in contravention of directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside – Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that accused had committed offence, nature and gravity of offence and likelihood of accused obstructing proceedings of trial in any manner or evading course of justice – Provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in administration of justice and protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of case – However, grant of bail is to be secured within bounds of law and in compliance with conditions laid down by this Court – Court must balance numerous factors that guide exercise of discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis – Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that accused had committed crime – It is not relevant at this stage for court to examine in detail evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding – Court assessing plea of bail is required to find a prima facie view of possibility of commission of crime by accused and not conclude that alleged crime was in fact committed by accused beyond reasonable doubt.. (Paras 14 and 17)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Considerations that guide power of an appellate court in assessing correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from assessment of an application for cancellation of bail – Correctness of an order granting bail is tested on anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail – Test is whether order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified – On other hand, application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on anvil of existence of supervening circumstances or violations of conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted – Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, appellate court may justifiably set aside order granting bail – Appellate court is required to consider whether order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of evidence on record – It is necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that accused had committed crime, also taking into account seriousness of crime and severity of punishment. (Paras 15 and 16)

(E) Administration of Justice – Open Justice – It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in mind of judge in rejection or grant of bail are recorded in order passed – Open justice is premised on notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done – Duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at heart of this commitment – Questions of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interests of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded opportunity to obstruct justice – Judges are duty bound to explain basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion – Where order refusing or granting bail does not furnish reasons that inform the decision, there is presumption of non-application of mind which may require intervention of this Court – Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted. (Paras 23 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present batch of appeals arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of High Court of Rajasthan at its Jaipur Bench dated 10 May 2019. Allowing the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, High Court enlarged the first respondent on bail subject to certain conditions therein. The original complainant is in appeal before this Court.

Findings of Court:

Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.

Result : Appeal allowed.