Facts
This was noted by the three-judge panel that included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, as they overturned the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to grant bail to a murder suspect. The Court further noted that the High Court had discretion in deciding whether to grant bail. It is necessary to exercise the same with discretion rather than automatically. To give you some context, the respondent was charged with murder among other offenses, hence the State of Jharkhand had petitioned the Top Court to overturn the bail decision. The State argued, among other things, that the High Court’s bail decision in a graphic murder case was a non-speaking one.
It should be mentioned that the prosecution maintains that the respondent was a member of the TPC, an extremist group that operated in the State. He and the other co-accused had seized the deceased by force from his home, and after that, the victim’s body was found. In addition, the respondent evaded capture for seven years until being apprehended. The Court began by citing the 2019 INSC 1325 case Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia &Another., which defined the guidelines for granting bail for heinous offenses including murder. In order to do this, the Court also had to determine if there was sufficient evidence or a reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the crime.
Issue
1.Does High Court have discretion to grant bail?
2.Does all the evidences sufficient?
Judgement
The Supreme Court recently (on July 9) noted that there is an assumption of non-application of mind in cases where an order of bail does not provide justification for the decision made. “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.”
In making its views, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of reversing the High Court’s bail decision if it neglected to take into account pertinent circumstances. The ruling states, to quote it: “An appeal court may properly set aside the order granting bail where a court considering an application for bail neglects to consider important factors. Thus, an appellate court must determine if the bail order is based just on the appearance of the evidence in the record or if it lacks mental application. The Court concluded after reviewing the contested order that the High Court should not have given any justification for its bail decision. Remitting the case to the High Court for further review underscores the Court’s obligation to document the rationale for the use of its discretionary authority.
Aishwarya, B. A. L. Lb. (Hons), Mody University Of Science And Technology, Laxmangarh, intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments