(Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023)
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
The appellant filed an FIR against four persons. His elder brother, Vikash Panwar had been in an extramarital relationship with Nirma @Gudia who is already married to some other person and also had two children from that wedlock. But parents and parents-in-law of Nirma used to threaten Vikash Panwar through calls and WhatsApp messages. One day, the informant got to know that his elder brother was shot dead in Nayapura Mandore Area. After inquiry, the informant got to know that the 4 accused persons had come on two bikes and dragged his elder brother, thereby causing his death. According to the previous FIR by the informant, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the other hand, Meera Devi, mother-in-law of Nirma filed an FIR against deceased Vikash Panwar that he kidnapped Nirma. Nirma also filed an FIR against her brother-in-law and parents-in-law under Sections 498A and 376 of IPC. She stated that she was being subjected to cruelty at her matrimonial house and her brother-in-law repeatedly raped her.
After all the investigation procedures, police filed a chargesheet against all the respondents- accused. Budharam was charged with offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B of the IPC along with Section 3 of the Arms Act read with Sections 25 and 27 of the said act, whereas Rajendra Bishnoi and Vikas Vishnoi were charged for offences under Section 302 and 120B of the IPC.
The application seeking regular bail filed by Vikas Vishnoi was dismissed by ADJ, Jodhpur while it was dismissed as withdrawn under Section 439 of CrPC by an order of the High Court. Thereafter, Vikas Vishnoi filed a second bail application and the High Court granted him bail in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Mandore. Also, Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi were granted bail by the High Court.
Being aggrieved, the appellant-informant has preferred these appeals before this Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondents-accused.
Whether it is necessary to acknowledge the vital aspects of the case while considering the bail applications so that the reasoned orders must be passed while exercising discretion in granting bail.
Appellants-Informants contended that the High Court failed to consider the vast material aspects that would point towards the guilt of the accused. Instead, the High Court indicated only the testimony of one hostile witness and exercised its discretion to grant bail inaccurately and irrationally.
Respondents-Accused contended that it does not matter how serious the nature of the alleged offences may be, the accused shall be entitled to be released on bail if the competent court is of the prima-facie view that the accused was/were not involved in the alleged crime. It would also be against the principles of natural justice and fundamental liberty of the accused if they were to be kept in custody for an indefinite period.
In this case, the question was raised on the granting of bail to the accused without considering the essential aspects of the case which can lead to the grant of bail. Later, the issue arose on the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged crime that whether they are involved in the crime or not because keeping them in custody without considering relevant factors shall hamper their liberty and freedom. On these issues, the competent court said that the following factors are to be discussed while deciding the bail application. These are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) the Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. The list is not exhaustive as stated in Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
Reference may also be made to recent decisions of this Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Jaibunisha vs. Meharban, wherein, on engaging in an elaborate discussion of the case law cited supra and after duly acknowledging that liberty of the individual is an invaluable right, it has been held that an order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Court also highlighted a Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself,”
While considering an application for a 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 the crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offences alleged against an accused. Elaborate details cannot be recorded so as 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 a grant of bail. However, the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as 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 with the evidence; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
Name- Mugdha Garg
College Name- GLA University
 Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240.
 Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280.
 Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129.
 Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 30.
 Jaibunisha vs. Meharban, (2022) 5 SCC 465.