This Court has, on several occasions 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 release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. While such a list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh- [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi– [(2001) 4 SCC 280] ; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – [(2018) 12 SCC 129]. (Para 18)
This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. (Para 19)
The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself,” is also apposite. (Para 21)
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. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents-accused by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning. (Para 25)
Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in light of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is a fit case for the grant of bail to the respondents-accused, given the seriousness of the allegations against them. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents-accused. Hence, the impugned judgments dated 14 February, 2022 and 02 February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur are set aside. The appeals are allowed. (Para 26)
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 82 SC https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWeb-82-SC.pdf
Rohit Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.
Decided on 24-7-2023
Click to See Full Text of Judgment: 2023 STPL(Web) 82
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWeb-82-SC.pdf
