The apex court observed this while setting aside two orders passed in 2019 by the Rajasthan High Court, which had granted bail to two accused in a murder case, saying the orders were cryptic and casual .
In its judgement delivered on the appeals filed by the wife of the deceased challenging the bail granted to the accused, a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna said the high court had not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case while passing the orders.
The bench, while referring to some earlier judgements of the apex court, noted 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 crystallized as such.
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 which would result in a convictionl criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against the accused, it said.
The bench said the top court, on several occasions, has discussed the factors to be considered by a court while deciding a bail application.
The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail 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) likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, it noted.
The apex court, while considering the facts of the case, observed that it does not think that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the accused, given the seriousness of the allegations against them.
Referring to an earlier judgement, the bench said it was noted that when bail has been granted to an accused, the State may if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the high court seeking its cancellation.
It noted that if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects that establish a prima facie case against the accused.
The bench expressed surprise that the state of Rajasthan had not filed any appeal against the high court orders in the matter.
“While we are conscious of the fact that a court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the high court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case,” it said.
“The high court has granted bail to the respondents-accused bypassing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning,” it said while setting aside the high court orders of September 9, 2019, and October 17, 2019.
While allowing the appeals, the bench directed both the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks.
The wife of the deceased had initially lodged a missing complaint in May 2019 stating that her husband had left home to attend a marriage ceremony but he did not return.
A first information report was lodged on May 15, 2019, at the instance of the son of the deceased.
It was alleged that the victim was last seen outside the house of the accused and some passerby had disclosed that they had seen them quarrelling with the deceased on the night of his death.
Later, the body was found and a charge sheet was filed against three accused of the alleged offences, including that of murder.
The trial court at Rajsamand in Rajasthan had dismissed the bail pleas filed by the two accused. Later, they moved to the high court, which granted them bail.
