Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Orders Due to Lack of Reasoning: Mauji Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (29 July 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 July 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 757

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused without providing any reasons? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case where the Allahabad High Court granted bail to several accused individuals without specifying any grounds for doing so. This judgment highlights the importance of reasoned orders in the judicial process, particularly in matters of personal liberty. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, set aside the High Court’s orders, emphasizing that bail orders must reflect a judicial application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had granted bail to seven accused individuals. These individuals were facing trial for offences including murder under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 323, 506, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The charges arose from Crime No. 608/2018, registered at P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

The accused were apprehended for the murder of Sumit Kumar, the son of the appellant-complainant, Mauji Ram. After their arrest, the accused applied for bail in the Sessions Court, which rejected their applications. Subsequently, the accused approached the High Court of Allahabad seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The High Court granted bail to the accused, which led to the present appeal by the complainant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court had initially rejected the bail applications of the accused. Subsequently, the accused filed bail applications before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The High Court allowed these applications and granted bail to the accused. The father of the deceased, feeling aggrieved by the High Court’s orders, filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for reasoned orders while granting bail, citing previous judgments on the matter.

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states:

“439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct—
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of the opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, the father of the deceased, argued that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the accused without providing any reasons.
• The appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the manner in which the murder was committed, and the antecedents of the accused.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s arguments and filed a counter-affidavit highlighting the serious nature of the charges and the criminal history of the accused.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents, the accused individuals, argued that the High Court had rightly granted them bail.
• They submitted that they had not violated any of the conditions of bail and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the High Court’s orders.
• They argued that the High Court had considered the facts and circumstances of the case before granting bail.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondents (accused) without assigning any reasons.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgments in Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 507*, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 753*, and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22* to emphasize the need for reasoned orders while granting bail. The Court noted that these precedents mandate that while granting or rejecting bail, the court must apply its mind to the relevant facts and material filed by the prosecution. The Court also interpreted Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to mean that the power to grant bail is not unfettered and must be exercised judicially.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s orders granting bail. The Court emphasized that bail orders, especially in serious cases, must reflect a judicial application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the High Court’s orders were devoid of any reasoning, which is a jurisdictional error. The Court also took into account the gravity of the offences, the manner in which the murder was committed, and the antecedents of the accused, as highlighted by the State in its counter-affidavit. These factors, the Court held, were relevant and should have been considered by the High Court while deciding on the bail applications.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court observed, “In our considered opinion, the High Court committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order because while passing the impugned order, the High Court did not assign any reason whatsoever as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bail to the respondents.”

The Court further stated, “It is unfortunate that neither the law laid down by this Court, nor the material filed by the prosecution was taken note of by the High Court while considering the grant of bail to the respondents.”

The Court also noted, “Having perused the FIR and keeping in view the antecedents of the accused persons which are brought on record by the State in their counter affidavit and further keeping in view the manner in which the offence under Section 302 IPC was committed, we are prima facie of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused persons.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide reasons when granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.
• Bail orders should reflect a judicial application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
• The gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the antecedents of the accused are relevant factors to be considered while deciding bail applications.
• Failure to provide reasons in a bail order can lead to the order being set aside by higher courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents (accused persons) to surrender in the concerned Sessions Court for being taken into custody as under-trials. The Court also directed the Sessions Judge to decide the trial strictly in accordance with the law on its merits, expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the order.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that reasoned orders are essential in the judicial process, particularly in matters of personal liberty. It reiterates the established legal position that while granting bail, the courts must apply their minds to the relevant facts and material on record. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a High Court cannot grant bail without assigning any reasons, and failure to do so is a jurisdictional error. This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but reinforces existing principles established in previous Supreme Court judgments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mauji Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reminder of the importance of reasoned judicial orders, especially in matters of bail. The Court’s emphasis on the need for High Courts to provide reasons for granting bail underscores the principle that judicial power must be exercised judiciously and transparently. The judgment ensures that decisions affecting personal liberty are not made arbitrarily and are based on a thorough consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. By setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court has upheld the integrity of the judicial process and reinforced the need for accountability in the exercise of judicial power.