<p>The Supreme Court has said that while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, providing such a relief to an accused without reasonings would be violation of principle of natural justice, allowing complainant or prosecution to assail the order in a higher court.</p>.<p>"While considering an application for bail, the court 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," a bench presided over by Justice L Nageswara Rao said.</p>.<p>The court explained the legal principles while allowing a plea by the mother of a deceased person, Rupesh Kumar against grant of bail by the Patna High Court to Pappu Kumar and another person in murder and attempt to murder case.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/plea-in-sc-seeks-uniform-judicial-code-across-india-1064535.html" target="_blank">Plea in SC seeks uniform judicial code across India</a></strong></p>.<p>In a recent judgement — the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna — said 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 crystalised as such.</p>.<p>"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," the court said. </p>.<p>At the same time, 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, the bench added.</p>.<p><strong>Check ou latest DH videos here</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that while elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, providing such a relief to an accused without reasonings would be violation of principle of natural justice, allowing complainant or prosecution to assail the order in a higher court.</p>.<p>"While considering an application for bail, the court 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," a bench presided over by Justice L Nageswara Rao said.</p>.<p>The court explained the legal principles while allowing a plea by the mother of a deceased person, Rupesh Kumar against grant of bail by the Patna High Court to Pappu Kumar and another person in murder and attempt to murder case.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/plea-in-sc-seeks-uniform-judicial-code-across-india-1064535.html" target="_blank">Plea in SC seeks uniform judicial code across India</a></strong></p>.<p>In a recent judgement — the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna — said 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 crystalised as such.</p>.<p>"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," the court said. </p>.<p>At the same time, 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, the bench added.</p>.<p><strong>Check ou latest DH videos here</strong></p>
