While considering bail application, Courts must exercise discretion in judicious manner & consider crime alleged to be committed by accused on one hand & ensure purity of trial of case on other: SC

Read Judgment: Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Another 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 20, 2021: The Supreme Court has opined that while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. 

However, it would be only a non-speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice, and in such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum, added the Court. 

A Larger Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna therefore observed that the Court considering an application for bail has to exercise discretion in a judicious manner and in accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the crime alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other.

The observation came pursuant to an appeal by Brijmani Devi (Appellant and mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar), who was stated to be an eyewitness to the killing of her son and also the person who lodged the FIR for offence of murder of her son u/s 302 r/w/s 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act against Pappu Kumar & Deepak Kumar (common respondent-accused, challenging the judgment, whereby the High Court had granted bail to the accused. 

After considering the arguments and settled precedents, the Apex Court highlighted a Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” which means “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Nagarathna observed that it is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalized as such. 

There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail, added the Larger Bench. 

However, Justice Nagarathna clarified that a balance would have to be struck between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. 

Hence, the Top Court allowed the appeal while concluding that the High Court had lost sight of the vital aspects of the case and in very cryptic orders had granted bail to the accused.