| CITATION | 2022 SCC OnLine SC 30 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 18 January 2022 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Jaibunisha |
| RESPONDENT | Meherban |
| BENCH | Vineet Saran, B.V.Nagarathna |
INTRODUCTION
The case is about the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased and also an eyewitness to the whole situation appealed to the Supreme Court with regard to the issue of granting of bail to the respondents-cum-accused, issued by the High Court. The High Court did not give any reasons for such orders and there was a factor of playing with the evidence.
FACTS OF THE CASE
As per the information given by the appellant, there was a presence of prior dispute between the accused and the deceased’s family. One day, at night, the accused entered the appellant’s house and attacked the appellant’s sons and husband with knives and swords. Because of the assault, the appellant’s son, Yameen was dead. Others were recorded with serious injuries. Only three of the accused were issued with chargesheet while remaining 8 were lodged with FIR but no chargesheet against them, who are the respondents here.
The appellant applied under Section 319 CrPC for the respondents to summon them, where they failed to appear before the court. So the court issued non-bailable warrants. The respondents applied for Section 482 CrPC to quash the order, but the High Court dismissed the application and gave a 30 days time period for them to surrender and they failed here as well. Finally, they were arrested by the police and kept in judicial custody. The respondents applied for the bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected by the court. They applied the same before the High Court and it accepted it. So the appellant appealed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the respondents be granted bail?
- Whether the High Court needs to give reasons for the granting of bail?
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
The counsel argues that in spite of issuing many order orders by the court, the respondents did not come for the representation. And the High Court has granted bail for them even though they remained in judicial custody for less than 9 months. So, there was a high risk of absconding again. There was a great risk of meddling with the evidence and witness. Moreover, the High Court has not given any reasons for the granting of bail.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The counsel contended that due to the tussle between both the parties, the respondents were also seriously injured. So, an FIR was lodged against them, which was the reason for the granting of bail. Moreover, the respondents do not have any criminal antecedents, this is also one of the reasons for the grant of bail. Also, during the bail application wide discussions on the merits should be avoided. So, the allegations against them were false and the orders of the High Court should not be allowed to appeal.
JUDGEMENT
Even though it is not essential for the court to give reasons for the granting of the bail, when the bail is granted in a causal manner, the person has the right to appeal it. And can aso approach the High Court to cancel the bail in case of rise of new circumstances. In case of no new circumstances, it can appeal against the order. As there was a huge risk of tampering of evidence and witness, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. The bail bonds were cancelled and orders to surrender within 2 weeks.
ANALYSIS
Here, the accused-cum-respondents did not follow the directions of the court from the beginning. They did not come before the court when summoned and even absconded. They were in judicial custody for a period of very less. Even then, the High Court had issued orders for the bail, that too, without providing any reasons for the same. After bail, there was a high chance of absconding and meddling with the witnesses. The High Court had failed to consider these aspects while considering the bail.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as per the judgement given by the court, it can be said that the appeal is possible in case of no reasons for the granting of bail is given. And the court needs to consider the various aspects relating to the case. Reasoning is an important factor. It does not need to analyse the case for granting the bail but should be able to contemplate innumerable possibilities surrounding it. Hence, “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”.
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.
