Read Judgment]
The Bench of Karnataka High Court has recently held that order of grant or not to grant regular bail has to be a speaking order and courts are bound to consider all the material on record before reaching to the conclusion. The court while setting aside the order of special judge further held that, the Court is duty bound to give reasons for granting or denying bail, especially in cases involving serious offences. Where a Court considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order.
Facts
The accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant thereby preferred a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.c., before the Special Court praying to enlarge them on bail, which was rejected vide impugned order. Subsequently, Special court rejected the prayer seeking bail.
Hence, the present three Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 14(A) of SC/ST (POA) Act, challenging the order of special court and praying to grant an order of regular bail under section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST(POA)Act.
Contention Made
Appellant: That after the arrest of the accused persons, the alleged eye witnesses has not identified them; there are contradictions in their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.c. It is further contended that the names of other accused persons except accused No.1 are not in the First Information Report and similarly placed accused No.6 has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. Further, that the liberty of the appellants has been curtailed in view of their detention in judicial custody
Respondent: That the offence committed is heinous in nature and there being eye witnesses to the incident in question, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the prayer seeking bail. Therefore it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellants on bail.
Court Observation
The Bench observed some well settled primary consideration for deciding the grant of bail.
The Bench further observed that, Where a Court considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order. Bail orders either granting or refusing cannot be passed in a mechanical manner or by a cryptic order, without considering the material aspects of the case. Court is duty bound to give reasons for granting or denying bail, especially in cases involving serious offences.
Judgment
The HC while setting aside the order passed by the special judge has held that Where a Court considering an application for bail when a bail petition is filed, the Court is bound to take into consideration all the contentions raised and pass an appropriate order. It is necessary to look into the material on record which prima facie connects the accused with the crime and adverting to those materials, Court can come to the conclusion as to whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and shall assign reasons for either allowing or rejecting a bail petition.
Further, court directed the special judge to hear the parties concerned afresh and pass orders on the bail application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Case: Nelson Raj vs The State of Karnataka
Citation: C.P. NO. 267,336 &337 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Mohammad Nawaz
Decided on: 21st June, 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments