SC strongly disapproves Allahabad HC judgment granting bail to murder convicts; says judgment lacks clarity

THE Supreme Court has strongly disapproved an Allahabad High Court judgment granting bail to the four accused pending their appeal against their conviction in a murder case.

A division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said it was at pains to note that the high court's order lacked clarity on which parts of it were submissions by the parties and which part the findings and reasonings of the court.

The judgment, the court further said, did not even record the arguments made by the Public Prosecutor opposing bail.

Explaining the meaning of the word 'judgment', the top court said every judgment had four basic elements: (i) statement of material (relevant) facts (ii) legal issues or questions (iii) deliberation to reach a decision and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision.

"A judgment should be coherent, systematic, and logically organized. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles", the top court emphasized.

A judgment reflects the individuality of the judge and therefore it is indispensable that it be written with care and caution, the court asserted.

The reasoning in the judgment, the apex court said, should be intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should be precise and specific.

"Writing judgments is an art, though it involves skillful application of law and logic", the court said.

The top court acknowledged that the judges may be overburdened with pending cases and arrears, but at the same time, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity.

"Unless a judgment is not in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack of clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should have clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival parties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and thereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion of the order", the top court said.

Finding the Allahabad High Court order unsustainable even on merit, the Supreme Court said the high court had failed to note the circumstances under which right from the very beginning efforts had been made by the accused to derail the investigation.

Once the accused have been convicted by the trial court, there would be no presumption of innocence. The high court should thus be very slow in granting bail to the accused during their appeal since they have been convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 302(punishment for murder), 149(unlawful assembly), 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.) read with 120B(criminal conspiracy)  of the Indian Penal Code(IPC)

Besides, the top court said the high court did not consider the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation against the accused and their antecedents and conduct of threatening witnesses during trial and even thereafter.

The top court thus set aside the high court order and directed the accused, namely, Swaminath Yadav, Surendra Kumar Pandey, Jhingur Bhar and Vikrama Yadav to surrender forthwith.

Click here to read the order