Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Rape Case Due to Lack of Reasoning: Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7893 of 2021)

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a heinous crime like rape without providing any specific reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The case highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that bail orders are not only just but also appear to be so, reinforcing the principles of open justice.

The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari, heard an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order that granted bail to an accused charged with rape and other serious offenses. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned decisions in bail matters.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal filed by the prosecutrix, Ms. Y, against the State of Rajasthan and the accused, respondent no. 2. The prosecutrix had filed a First Information Report (FIR) on May 30, 2021, alleging that her uncle, respondent no. 2, had raped her on multiple occasions. She detailed instances of sexual harassment and assault dating back to 2014. The accused, respondent no. 2, had allegedly threatened her, preventing her from disclosing these incidents earlier. The chargesheet, dated June 29, 2021, outlined these allegations.

The prosecutrix stated that on the night of May 16-17, 2021, the accused had called her to his room and forcibly raped her twice. She had previously been subjected to inappropriate touching in 2014 and an attempted rape in 2015. The accused had also used obscene language and attempted to establish physical relations with her on various occasions. The prosecutrix, out of fear, did not disclose these incidents until she narrated them to her family after they noticed her distress.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused, respondent no. 2, through an order dated September 20, 2021. The prosecutrix then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. The State of Rajasthan supported the prosecutrix’s appeal, arguing that the High Court’s order was cryptic and did not consider the gravity of the offenses or the accused’s criminal history.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail. The Court emphasized that while granting bail, the court must exercise its discretion judiciously, considering various factors, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the accused’s criminal history.

The Court also referred to previous judgments that outlined the parameters for granting bail. These included:

• Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, which lists the factors to be considered while granting bail.
• State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, which highlights the importance of considering the prima facie involvement of the accused, the nature and gravity of the charge, and the character of the accused.
• Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767, which emphasizes that the Supreme Court should not ordinarily interfere with orders granting or refusing bail.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, which reiterates the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the prima facie case, nature of the accusation, and the danger of the accused absconding.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, which states that an appellate court may set aside an order granting bail if it fails to consider relevant factors.
• Jagjeet Singh & Ors. V. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022, which clarifies that the discretion to grant bail is not unfettered and must be exercised judiciously.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, which differentiates between the cancellation of bail due to misconduct and setting aside an unjustified bail order.

Arguments

Appellant (Prosecutrix):

• The High Court erred in granting bail in a mechanical manner without any reasoning.
• The High Court did not consider the gravity of the offenses alleged against the accused.
• The accused is a hardened criminal with nearly twenty criminal cases pending against him.

Respondent No. 1 (State of Rajasthan):

• Supported the appellant’s submissions, stating that the High Court’s order was cryptic and liable to be set aside.
• There is a strong prima facie case against the accused, who committed the heinous offense of rape and sexual assault upon his minor niece for nearly three to four years.
• The accused is an infamous criminal with twenty criminal cases registered against him, including cases of murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, and dacoity.

Respondent No. 2 (Accused):

• The High Court passed the impugned order granting bail after hearing the accused and the State.
• No new materials have been placed on record before this Court requiring interference with the impugned order.
• An appellate Court must be slow to interfere in an order granting bail to the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court of Rajasthan properly exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while granting bail to the accused, considering the gravity of the offenses and his criminal history.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118* to establish the parameters for granting bail, emphasizing the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offense.
• The Court used State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21* to highlight the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the prima facie involvement of the accused.
• The Court cited Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767* to acknowledge that the Supreme Court should not ordinarily interfere with bail orders but noted that exceptions exist.
• The Court used Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496* to reiterate the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature of the accusation and the danger of the accused absconding.
• The Court relied on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118* to justify setting aside the bail order due to the High Court’s failure to consider relevant factors.
• The Court cited Jagjeet Singh & Ors. V. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022* to clarify that the discretion to grant bail is not unfettered and must be exercised judiciously.
• The Court used Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508* to distinguish between the cancellation of bail and setting aside an unjustified bail order, emphasizing that the present case falls under the latter category.
• The Court cited Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338* to emphasize the necessity of reasoned orders while granting bail.
• The Court used Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528* to indicate the importance of reasoning in matters concerning bail.
• The Court relied on Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna, (2009) 1 SCC 678* to reiterate the need for reasoned orders in serious cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order. The Court emphasized that reasoned orders are fundamental to the judicial system and that a mere statement of considering “facts and circumstances” is insufficient. The Court was also influenced by the severity of the offense (rape), the accused’s criminal history, and the potential influence the accused could have over the prosecutrix.

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal principles and the need for reasoned orders, with a secondary focus on the factual elements of the case.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order was not reasoned, did not consider the gravity of the offense, and failed to acknowledge the accused’s criminal history. These factors led the Supreme Court to set aside the bail order.

Key Takeaways

✓ High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious offenses.

✓ A mere observation that “facts and circumstances” have been considered is insufficient.

✓ Courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the accused’s criminal history, and potential influence over witnesses.

✓ The absence of reasoning in a bail order can lead to its being set aside by a superior court.

✓ The judiciary must ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
• The bail bonds stand cancelled.
• Respondent no. 2 (accused) is directed to surrender within one week from the receipt of the order, failing which, the concerned police authorities shall take him into custody.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that reasoned orders are essential in the judicial process, particularly in matters of bail. It clarifies that a High Court’s discretion to grant bail is not unfettered and must be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant factors. The case also highlights that superior courts can and should interfere with bail orders that lack reasoning and do not demonstrate an application of mind by the lower court. The ratio decidendi of the case is that bail orders must be reasoned, especially in serious offenses, and that the failure to provide such reasoning is grounds for setting aside the order. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan underscores the critical importance of reasoned judicial orders, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The Court’s setting aside of the Rajasthan High Court’s bail order serves as a reminder that the judiciary must not only deliver justice but also demonstrate the basis for its decisions. This case reinforces the need for courts to meticulously consider all relevant factors and articulate their reasoning, ensuring transparency and fairness in the administration of justice.