New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that a bail order passed without assigning reasons showed non application of mind and the power to grant bail is discretionary but it has to be exercised in judicious manner.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the Jharkhand High Court's order of April 26, 2023 releasing an accused, Anil Ganjhu allegedly belonging to an extremist organisation in a case of murder and abduction.
"The power to grant bail under Section 439 CrPC is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course," the bench said.
The Jharkhand government challenged the bail order, saying the accused belonged to extremist organisation, TPC, and was involved in a serious offence. He was arrested seven years after lodging the FIR in 2016.
The court issued notice in the matter in May, this year.
"The order passed by the High Court is so slipshod that we are unable to understand anything, more particularly as to what actually weighed with the High Court in releasing the accused on bail and that too in connection with an offence of murder," the bench had then said.
The court went on to examine the matter while the accused preferred to remain unrepresented even after being served with the notice.
It said where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail.
"An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record," the bench said.
Going through the High Court's order, the court noted it is evident that the High Court failed to assign any reasons for the exercise of its discretion in favour of the accused, knowing fully well that he is involved in a serious offence like murder and was absconding.
"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," the bench said.
It asked the HC to consider the matter afresh within 10 days.
Published 11 July 2024, 15:18 IST
