IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for granting or rejecting bail, the need for open justice, and the duty of judges to give reasoned decisions. It also highlighted the limitations on filing successive bail applications without a change in circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

“1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 324 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506, 328 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Prayagraj.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A., and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.

5. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within eight months in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.”

“24. There is another reason why the judgment of the learned Single Judge has fallen into error. It is a sound exercise of judicial discipline for an order granting or rejecting bail to record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power. In the present case, the assessment by the High Court is essentially contained in a single paragraph which reads:

"4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

25. Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.

27. 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.”

"7. Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the founding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It follows therefore that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. That law permits curtailment of libert