1

REPORTABLE 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.6335 OF 2021)

BRIJMANI DEVI      …..APPELLANT(S) 

VERSUS

PAPPU KUMAR & ANR.       ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.              OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.7916 OF 2021)

O R D E R

NAGARATHNA J. 

Leave granted. 

2. These   appeals   have   been   preferred   by   the   informant   ­

appellant assailing the orders dated 22.07.2021 and 13.09.2021
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.12.17
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Patna   in   Criminal
16:56:11 IST
Reason:

Miscellaneous   Nos.11683   of   2021   and   26463   of   2021

 2

respectively whereby bail has been granted to the accused who is

the   common   respondent   in   the   appeals,   in   connection   with

Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020 and Parsa Bazar P.S. Case

No.316 of 2017 respectively. 

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the mother

of   the   deceased   Rupesh   Kumar.   She   is   stated   to   be   an

eyewitness   to   the   killing   of   her   son   and   also   the   person   who

lodged the First Information Report being FIR No.93 of 2020 for

offence of murder of her son under section 302 read with section

34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and section 27

of the Arms Act against common respondent­accused herein viz.,

Pappu Kumar and one other person named Deepak Kumar. 

4. That FIR No.93/2020 dated 19.02.2020 is stated to have

been filed by the appellant herein between 2.30 hrs and 3.00 hrs

in the night stating that her son Rupesh Kumar aged about 35

years was sleeping in the room constructed on the roof top of her

house.  A relative,  Deepak  Kumar was also  sleeping there. She

was   sleeping   in   another   room   which   is   beside   the   aforesaid

room.   She   has   further   stated   that   she   heard   the   sound   of   a

person   walking   and   also   talking   and   then   she   saw   that

respondent–accused was present and he had a pistol in his hand
 3

and   when   he   saw   her,   he   caught   her   and   forcefully   tied   her

mouth   with   his   Gamchha   (towel)   and   he   shot   her   son   on   the

head from his pistol in front of her and Deepak Kumar too shot

once at her son’s head. As a result, her son died. Other family

members reached the spot upon hearing the firing sound. But

the accused ran away waiving their pistols. 

5. Earlier,  FIR   No.316   of   2017   was   lodged   at  Police   Station

Parsa   Bazar   by   appellant’s   deceased   son   himself   viz.,   Rupesh

Kumar for causing serious bullet injury to him, under sections

341, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms

Act,   by   giving   a  ferdbeyan  against   the   very   same   respondent­

accused herein and his two acquaintances to K.K. Verma, ASI,

Shashtri Nagar PS, District Patna, on 28.12.2017 at 7.57 pm at

Emergency   Ward,   Paras   Hospital,   Patna.   This  ferdbeyan  was

given in respect of an incident which occurred on the previous

day   i.e.   27.12.2017   when   he   had   gone   to   meet   his   friend

Shailendra at Sipara. While Rupesh Kumar was returning from

his   friend’s   house,   the   respondent­accused   along   with   his   two

acquaintances   caught   him   and   respondent­accused   fired   and

caused   bullet   injury   to   him.     When   Rupesh   Kumar   ran   and

reached a farmer’s house in the nearby village and narrated the
 4

entire   story   to   him,   he   was   taken   to   the   police   station   on   a

motorcycle and had lodged FIR No.316/2017.

6. According to the appellant, the respondent­accused herein

had  attempted  to   kill her son  viz.,  Rupesh  Kumar in  the  year

2017 by firing at him and an FIR was lodged being FIR No.316 of

2017.   But   after   lodging   FIR   No.   93   of   2020,   the   respondent­

accused   had   absconded   for   about   seven   months.   He   had   also

threatened   the   appellant   herein   and   exerted   pressure   on   the

appellant­informant and her family to withdraw the complaint,

failing   which   he   would   eliminate   the   entire   family.     That   a

written complaint of the appellant dated 30.09.2020 was filed to

the   police,   in   pursuance   of   which   complaint   the   respondent­

accused   was   nabbed   in   connection   with   murder   of   Rupesh

Kumar. 

7. While   on   the   run   respondent­accused   was   arrested   on

30.09.2020.   The   respondent­accused   has   been   in   judicial

custody for a period of nine months till he was granted bail by

the High Court. 

8. In fact, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at

Patna, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to

the   respondent­accused   herein   in   connection   with   FIR

 5

No.316/2017. An order of remand to judicial custody was passed

in   connection   with   Naubatpur   P.S.   Case   No.316/2017   under

section 307 of IPC on 06.01.2021. 

9. That the accused made an application seeking bail before

the   Sessions   Court,   which   was   rejected   by   the   Additional

Sessions   Judge­I,   Danapur   by   Order   dated   08.12.2020.

Thereafter, the respondent­accused filed an application for grant

of   bail   by   suppressing   his   criminal   antecedents   and   by   the

impugned order dated 22.07.2021, the High Court granted him

bail in connection with the case being FIR No.93/2020 registered

at   Naubatpur   P.S.   for   offence   under   section   302   read   with

section   34   of   IPC   and   section   27   of   the   Arms   Act,   subject   to

certain conditions. 

10. Subsequently,   the   High   Court,   vide   order   dated

13.09.2021,   also   granted   bail   to   respondent­accused   in

connection   with   the   other   case   being   FIR   No.316/2017

registered at Parsa Bazar P.S.   for offences under sections 341,

307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these appeals before

this Court. 
 6

11. We have heard Sri Smarhar Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant   and   Sri   R.   Basant,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for

respondent­accused and perused the material on record. 

12. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the

respondent­accused   has   been   named   in   eight   cases.   Even

though, the said accused may have been acquitted in a few cases,

there are still three cases pending against him. He had attempted

unsuccessfully   to   kill   the   deceased   Rupesh   Kumar   in   the

year   2017.   Later   in   the   year   2020,   he   killed   the   deceased   and

absconded for about seven months. The mother of the deceased

appellant herein, is the informant and she has been threatened

by   respondent.   He   was   in   judicial   custody   only  for   a   period   of

nine   months   as   he   had   earlier   absconded   but   has   now   been

granted bail by the High Court contrary to the settled principles

of law and the judgments of this Court. 

13. Further it is urged that the High Court has not assigned

reasons   for   grant   of   bail   in   the   instant   cases   whereas   the

respondent­accused is alleged to have committed heinous crimes

which   could   result   in   life   imprisonment  or  even   death   penalty.

Respondent­accused,   being  a   habitual   offender,   could   not  have

been   granted   bail   by   the   High   Court.   According  to   the   learned

 7

counsel for the appellant, the High Court in a very cryptic order

de   hors  any   reasoning   has   granted   bail   to   the   respondent­

accused. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,

who is mother of the deceased, to allow these appeals by setting

aside the impugned orders. In support of his submission, reliance

has been placed on certain decisions of this Court which shall be

referred to later.

14. Per   contra,   Sri   Basant,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the

respondent­accused,   supported   the   impugned   orders   and

contended that accused no.2 in the case is the brother­in­law of

the deceased and both of them were accused in another case in

which   the   respondent­accused   herein   has   been   enlisted   as   a

witness. The deceased and Deepak Kumar – accused no.2 were

living   together   in   the   same   house.   He   may   have   fired   at   the

deceased but not the respondent­accused herein. This is a case

of false implication of the respondent­accused by the informant.

15.     That the gun was recovered from accused no.2 and there

has   been   no   recovery   made   from   respondent­accused.   There

have been several cases against the deceased and accused no.2

also. 
 8

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent­accused further

contended that respondent­accused was 350 kms away on the

intervening night of 18th and 19th February, 2020. He was not at

the spot of the crime at all. This is evident from the mobile phone

details.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   considering

these aspects and granting bail to the respondent­accused.

 
17. In  support of his  submission,  Sri Basant, learned Senior

Counsel, placed reliance on Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs.

Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ­ (1978) 1

SCC   240,   which   prescribes   the   approach   of   a   Court   while

granting bail. The Court considering an application seeking bail

cannot enter into an in­depth analysis of the case so as to hold a

mini   trial   of   the   case.   It   is   also   unnecessary   to   give   lengthy

reasons at the time of granting bail. It was contended that bail is

the norm and jail is the exception. Once bail has been granted

by a Court, it is only in very rare cases that there is interference

as it would have the effect of cancellation of bail. That the liberty

of   a   person   cannot   be   interfered   with   unless   the   situation

warrants.  

18. It   was   further   submitted   that   learned   counsel   for   the

appellant   was   not   right   in   contending   that   the   respondent

 9

­accused   had   absconded.   In   fact,   there   was   no   chargesheet

against him. It was only when a protest petition was filed, that a

chargesheet was filed against him and he was arrested. 

19. It   was   further   submitted   that   the   allegations   against   the

respondent­accused are false and hence the impugned orders of

the High Court do not call for any interference in these appeals. 

20. Having   regard   to   the   contention   of   Sri   Smarhar   Singh,

learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   the   impugned   orders

granting   bail   to   the   respondent­accused   are   bereft   of   any

reasoning and they are cryptic and bail has been granted in a

casual   manner,   we   extract   those   portions   of   the   impugned

orders dated 22nd  July, 2021 and 13th  September, 2021 passed

by the High Court, which provides the “reasoning” of the Court

for granting bail, as under : 

“Impugned Order dated 22.7.2021

During   course   of   investigation,   it   has   come   that   at   the

time   and   date   of   occurrence   petitioner   was   at   Araria.
Petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2020.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the   fact   that   false   implication   against   the   petitioner
cannot   be   rule   out,   the   petitioner   above­named,   is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/­ (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   III,   Patna   in   connection   with
 10

Naubatpur P.S. Case No.93 of 2020, subject to following
conditions:

(i) The   petitioner   shall   co­operate   in   the   trial

and   shall   be   properly   represented   on   each
and  every  date  fixed by  the  court   and  shall
remain physically present as directed by the
Court   and   in   the   event   of   failure   on   two
consecutive dates without sufficient reasons,
his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled
by the court below.

(ii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
the   witnesses   of   the   case,   in   that   case,
prosecution   will   be   at   liberty   to   move   for
cancellation of bail of the petitioner.”

Impugned Order dated 13.09.2021 

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2021, let the
petitioner,   mentioned   above,   be   enlarged   on   bail   on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/­ (ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Sub Judge­VIII, Patna, in connection with Parza
Bazar  P.S.  Case  No. 316/2017,  subject  to  the  following
conditions:

(1)  Petitioner shall co­operate in the trial and
shall be properly represented on each and every
date   fixed   by   the   Court   and   shall   remain
physically present as directed by the Court and
on   his/her   absence   on   two   consecutive   dates
without   sufficient   reason,   his/her   bail   bond
shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2)   If   the   petitioner   tampers   with   the

evidence   or   the   witnesses,   in   that   case,   the
prosecution   will   be   at   liberty   to   move   for
cancellation of bail.”
 11

21. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the

judgments   of   this   Court   in   the   matter   of   granting   bail   to   an

accused as under:

a) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., while

elaborating on the content and meaning of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, has also elaborated the factors that

have   to   be   considered   while   granting   bail   which   are

extracted as under:

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is
the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may
be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.

8.   Another   relevant   factor   is   as   to   whether   the

course   of   justice   would   be   thwarted   by   him   who
seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be
freed for the time being.

9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the
Court   considering   the   likelihood   of   the   applicant
interfering   with   witnesses   for   the   prosecution   or
otherwise  polluting the  process  of justice.  It  is not
only   traditional   but   rational,   in   this   context,   to
enquire   into   the   antecedents   of   a   man   who   is
applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record
–   particularly   a   record   which   suggests   that   he   is
likely   to   commit   serious   offences   while   on   bail.   In
regard   to   habituals,   it   is   part   of   criminological
history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the
bailee   to   exploit   the   opportunity   to   inflict   further
about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore
not an exercise in irrelevance.”

b) Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS – (2001) 4

SCC 280  is a case wherein this Court proceeded to state
 12

the  following principles which  are to  be considered  while

granting bail: 

“(a)   While   granting   bail   the   court   has   to   keep   in

mind   not  only   the   nature   of   the   accusations,   but
the   severity   of   the   punishment,   if   the   accusation
entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.

(b)   Reasonable   apprehensions   of   the   witnesses

being tampered with or the apprehension of there
being   a   threat   for   the   complainant   should   also
weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c)   While   it   is   not   expected   to   have   the   entire

evidence   establishing   the   guilt   of   the   accused
beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to
be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
of the charge.

(d)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always   be

considered   and   it   is   only   the   element   of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the
matter   of   grant   of   bail,   and   in   the   event   of   there
being   some   doubt   as   to   the   genuineness   of   the
prosecution,   in   the   normal   course   of   events,   the
accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

c) This   Court   in  Ram   Govind   Upadhyay   vs.   Sudarshan

Singh – (2002) 3 SCC 598, speaking through Banerjee, J.,

observed as under: 

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order
—   but,   however,   calls   for   exercise   of   such   a
discretion   in   a   judicious   manner   and   not   as   a
matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent
reason   cannot   be   sustained.   Needless   to   record,
however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon
the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with
by   the   court   and   facts,   however,   do   always   vary
from case to case. While placement of the accused
in the society, though may be considered but that
by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of
grant of bail and the same should and ought always
 13

to be coupled with other circumstances warranting
the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of
the   basic   considerations   for   the   grant   of   bail   —
more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance
of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent
on the factual matrix of the matter.”

d)  In  Kalyan   Chandra   Sarkar   vs.   Rajesh   Ranjan   alias

Pappu   Yadav   &   Anr.  –   (2004)   7   SCC   528,   this   Court

observed in paragraph 11 as under :

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very   well   settled.   The   court   granting   bail   should
exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not
as   a   matter   of   course.   Though   at   the   stage   of
granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and
elaborate   documentation   of   the   merit   of   the   case
need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate
in   such   orders   reasons   for   prima   facie   concluding
why bail was being granted particularly, where the
accused   is   charged   of   having   committed   a   serious
offence.   Any   order   devoid   of   such   reasons   would
suffer   from   non   ­application   of   mind.   It   is   also
necessary   for   the   court   granting   bail   to   consider
among   other   circumstances,   the   following   factors
also before granting bail; they are:

a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment   in   case   of   conviction   and   the
nature of supporting evidence.

b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant.

(c)   Prima   facie   satisfaction   of   the   court   in

support   of   the   charge.   (See  Ram   Govind
Upadhyay   v.   Sudarshan   Singh,   (2002)   3
SCC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6
SCC 338.”
 14

e) Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State of Gujarat &

Ors.   etc.   etc.  –   (2008)   3   SCC   775,  is   a   case   which

concerns   cancellation   of   bail   by   this   Court   in   a   petition

filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In the

said case reliance was placed on  Panchanan Mishra vs.

Digambar Mishra – (2005) 3 SCC 143 wherein in para 13

it was observed as under: 

“13. The object underlying the cancellation of bail is
to   protect   the   fair   trial   and   secure   justice   being
done to the society by preventing the accused who
is   set   at   liberty   by   the   bail   order   from   tampering
with the evidence in the heinous crime … It hardly
requires to be stated that once a person is released
on   bail   in   serious   criminal   cases   where   the
punishment   is   quite   stringent   and   deterrent,   the
accused in order to get away from the clutches of
the   same   indulge   in   various   activities   like
tampering   with   the   prosecution   witnesses,
threatening   the   family   members   of   the   deceased
victim   and   also   create   problems   of   law   and  order
situation.”

Further   on   referring   to   the  State   of   UP   vs.

Amarmani Tripathi – (2005) 8 SCC 21, this Court noted

the   facts   of   the   case   therein   to   the   effect   that   the

respondent therein had been named in ten other criminal

cases   in   the  last  25  years   or so,   out  of  which  five   cases

were   under   section   307   IPC   for   attempt   to   murder   and

another   under   section   302   IPC   for   committing   murder.

That   in   most   of   the   cases   he   was   acquitted   for   want   of

 15

sufficient   evidence.   Without   saying   anything   further   this

Court   noted   that   the   High   Court   in   the   said   case

completely ignored the general principle for grant of bail in

a   heinous   crime   of   commission   of   murder   in   which   the

sentence, if convicted, is death or life imprisonment. 

It was further observed that in the impugned order

therein the findings recorded touched upon the merits of

the   case   and   the   learned   Judge   had   proceeded   as   if   an

order of acquittal was being passed, contrary to what had

been said in Amarmani Tripathi which is that only a brief

examination has to be made to satisfy about the facts and

circumstances or a prima facie case. 

f) This   Court   in  Ash   Mohammad   vs.   Shiv   Raj   Singh   @

Lalla Bahu & Anr. – (2012) 9 SCC 446, observed that

though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same

has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the

circumstances   and   the   criminal   antecedents.   That   these

are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire

and   that   societal   concern   has   to   be   kept   in   view   in

juxtaposition to individual liberty, was underlined.
 16

g) In Neeru Yadav vs.  State of UP & Anr. – (2016) 15 SCC

422, after referring to a catena of judgments of this Court

on  the  consideration   of  factors  for  grant  of  bail observed

through   Dipak   Misra,   J.   (as   His   Lordship   then   was)   in

paragraphs 15 and 18 as under: 

“15.   This   being   the   position   of   law,   it   is   clear   as

cloudless   sky   that   the   High   Court   has   totally
ignored   the   criminal   antecedents   of   the   accused.
What   has   weighed   with   the   High   Court   is   the
doctrine of parity. A history­sheeter involved in the
nature   of   crimes   which   we   have   reproduced
hereinabove,   are  not   minor   offences   so  that   he   is
not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of
heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of
imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases
do create a thunder and lightening having the effect
potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind.
The   law   expects   the   judiciary   to   be   alert   while
admitting   these   kind   of   accused   persons   to   be   at
large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of
discretion   judiciously   and   not   in   a   whimsical
manner. 

x x x 

18.   Before   parting   with   the   case,   we   may   repeat

with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation
of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of
supervening circumstances. The annulment of the
order passed by the High Court is sought as many
relevant   factors   have   not   been   taken   into
consideration   which   includes   the   criminal
antecedents   of   the   accused   and   that   makes   the
order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result
is the lancination of the impugned order.”

h)     In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) – (2018) 12

SCC 129, this Court has spelt out some of the significant
 17

considerations   which   must   be   placed   in   the   balance   in

deciding whether to grant bail: 

“17.   While   granting   bail,   the   relevant

considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the
offence;   (ii)   character   of   the   evidence   and
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
and   (iii)   likelihood   of   the   accused   fleeing   from
justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make
on   the   prosecution   witnesses,   its   impact   on   the
society;   and   (v)   likelihood   of   his   tampering.   No
doubt,   this   list   is   not   exhaustive.   There   are   no
hard­and­fast   rules   regarding   grant   or   refusal   of
bail,   each   case   has   to   be   considered   on   its   own
merits.   The   matter   always   calls   for   judicious
exercise of discretion by the Court.”

i) Recently in Bhoopindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021), this Court has

observed as under in the matter of exercise of an appellate

power to determine whether bail has been granted for valid

reasons as distinct from an application for cancellation of

bail   by   quoting  Mahipal   vs.   Rajesh   Kumar  ­   (2020)   2

SCC 118:
“16. The considerations that guide the power of an
appellate court in assessing the correctness of an
order   granting   bail   stand   on   a   different   footing
from   an   assessment   of   an   application   for   the
cancellation   of   bail.   The   correctness   of   an   order
granting   bail   is   tested   on   the   anvil   of   whether
there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the
discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether
the   order   granting   bail   is   perverse,   illegal   or
unjustified. On the other hand, an application for
cancellation  of bail is generally examined on  the
anvil   of   the   existence   of   supervening
 18

circumstances   or   violations   of   the   conditions   of

bail by a person to whom bail has been granted.” 

22. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision

arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi­judicial

authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court

in  Kranti   Associates   Private   Limited   &   Anr.   Vs.   Masood

Ahmed   Khan   &   Ors.  –   (2010)   9   SCC   496,   wherein   after

referring  to  a number of  judgments  this   Court  summarised  at

paragraph 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for

the purpose of this case are extracted as under: 

(a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider   principle   of   justice   that   justice   must   not   only   be
done it must also appear to be done as well.

(b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any   possible   arbitrary   exercise   of   judicial   and   quasi­
judicial or even administrative power.

(c) Reasons   reassure   that   discretion   has   been   exercised   by

the   decision­maker   on   relevant   grounds   and   by
disregarding extraneous considerations.

(d) Reasons   have   virtually   become   as   indispensable   a

component   of   a   decision­making   process   as   observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi­judicial and
even by administrative bodies.

(e) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned   decisions   based   on   relevant   facts.   This   is
virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision­making justifying
the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
 19

(f) Judicial or even quasi­judicial opinions these days can be
as   different   as   the   judges   and   authorities   who   deliver
them.   All   these   decisions   serve   one   common   purpose
which   is   to   demonstrate   by   reason   that   the   relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is important
for   sustaining   the   litigants'   faith   in   the   justice   delivery
system.

(g) Insistence   on   reason   is   a   requirement   for   both   judicial

accountability and transparency.

(h) If   a   judge   or   a   quasi­judicial   authority   is   not   candid

enough about his/her decision­making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to   the   doctrine   of   precedent   or   to   principles   of
incrementalism.

(i) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber­stamp reasons”
is not to be equated with a valid decision­making process.

(j) It   cannot   be   doubted   that   transparency   is   the   sine   qua

non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency
in   decision­making   not   only   makes   the   judges   and
decision­makers less prone to errors but also makes them
subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence
of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731­
37)

(k)  In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role
in   setting   up   precedents   for   the   future.   Therefore,   for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due
process”.

23. Though   the   aforesaid   judgment   was   rendered   in   the

context of a dismissal of a revision petition by a cryptic order by

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reliance
 20

could   be   placed   on   the   said   judgment   on   the   need   to   give

reasons while deciding a matter.

  
24. 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. 

25. While   we   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   liberty   of   an

individual   is   an   invaluable   right,   at   the   same   time   while

considering  an  application   for bail Courts  cannot  lose  sight of

the   serious  nature   of   the  accusations   against  an   accused  and

the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the

accusations   may   not  be  false,   frivolous   or  vexatious   in   nature

but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as

to   enable   a  Court  to   arrive   at  a  prima   facie  conclusion.   While

considering   an   application   for   grant   of   bail   a  prima   facie

conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived

at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on

record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of

the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if

any,   and   the   nature   of   punishment   that   would   follow   a

conviction vis­à­vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.  
 21

26. We have extracted the relevant portions of the impugned

orders   above.   At   the   outset,   we   observe   that   the   extracted

portions are the only portions forming part of the “reasoning” of

the High court while granting bail. As noted from the aforecited

judgments,   it   is   not   necessary   for   a   Court   to   give   elaborate

reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the

initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused

would   not   have   been   crystalised   as   such.   There   cannot   be

elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is

one   that   would   result   in   a   conviction   or,   by   contrast,   in   an

acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of

bail.   At   the   same   time,   a   balance   would   have   to   be   struck

between the nature of the allegations made against the accused;

severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond

reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable

apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;

tampering   of   the   evidence;   the   frivolity   in   the   case   of   the

prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima

facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against

the accused. 
 22

27. Ultimately,   the   Court   considering   an   application   for   bail

has   to   exercise   discretion   in   a   judicious   manner   and   in

accordance with the settled principles of law having regard to the

crime alleged to be committed by the accused on the one hand

and ensuring purity of the trial of the case on the other. 

28. Thus,   while  elaborating  reasons   may  not  be   assigned   for

grant  of   bail,   at  the   same  time   an   order  de  hors  reasoning or

bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. It

would   be   only   a   non   speaking   order   which   is   an   instance   of

violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice.   In   such   a   case   the

prosecution   or   the   informant   has   a   right   to   assail   the   order

before a higher forum. 

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we shall now consider

the facts of the present case. The allegations against respondent­

accused as well as the contentions raised at the Bar have been

narrated   in   detail   above.   On   a   consideration   of   the   same,   the

following aspects of the case would emerge:

a) Allegations   against   the   respondent­accused   are   under

Sections   341,   307   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC   and

Section   27   of   the   Arms   Act  in   respect  of   FIR   No.   316  of

2017   lodged   at   Police   Station   Parsa   Bazar   which   is   with

 23

regard   to   attempt   to   murder   Rupesh   Kumar   the   injured,

who   had   himself   given   the  Ferdbayan  against   the

respondent ­ accused herein. The other case, namely, FIR

No. 93 of 2020 is with regard to the offence of murder of

appellant’s   son   Rupesh   Kumar   under   Section   302   read

with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

against   respondent­accused   herein   and   accused   no.2

Deepak Kumar. Thus, offences alleged against respondent­

accused herein are serious offences vis­a­vis the very same

Rupesh   Kumar   at   two   points   of   time,   namely,   in   2017

when   attempt   to   murder   him   is   alleged   and   in   2020

allegation   of   murder   has   been   cast   by   the   appellant,

mother of the deceased who is stated to be an eyewitness.

Thus, the allegations against the respondent ­ accused vis­

a­vis   the   same   person,   namely,   the   informant   Rupesh

Kumar in both the cases.

b) According   to   the   respondent­accused,   there   has   been   a

history of enmity between the accused and the deceased.  

c) The accusation against the respondent­accused is that he

shot Rupesh Kumar with  a fire arm,  namely, a pistol on

two occasions. 
 24

d) The respondent­accused herein has been named in about

eight cases and though he may have been acquitted in a

few   of   them,   there   are   still   cases   pending   against   him.

Thus, it is inferred that respondent­accused has criminal

antecedents. 

e) It has also come on record that the respondent ­ accused

had   absconded   for   a   period   of   seven   months   after   the

complaint   in   respect   of   the   second   offence   was   lodged

against him. Therefore, his arrest was delayed.  

f) It   is   also   the   case   of   the   appellant   that   the   respondent­

accused   had   threatened   the   informant   mother   of   the

deceased. 

g) Thus,   there   is   a   likelihood   of   the   respondent­accused

absconding or threatening the witnesses if on  bail which

would have a vital bearing on the trial of the cases.

h) Also,   for   securing   the   respondent­accused   herein   for   the

purpose of commencement of the trial in right earnest in

both   the   cases,   as   the   accused   had   earlier   absconded,

discretion could not have been exercised in favour of the

respondent­accused in the instant cases. 
 25

i) In the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, the High Court

has  noted  that there was a previous  enmity between  the

deceased  and   the  petitioner  with  regard  to   contesting  an

Election as Mukhiya of Chhotki Tangraila Gram Panchayat

but this fact has not been taken into consideration in the

context   of   the   allegation   against   the   accused   and   with

regard to grant of bail. 

30. Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in

juxtaposition   with   the   judgments   referred   to   above,   we   do   not

think   that   these   cases   are   fit   cases   for   grant   of   bail   to

respondent­accused   in   respect   of   the   two   serious   accusations

against   him   vis­à­vis   the   very   same   person   namely   deceased

Rupesh Kumar. 

31. The High court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects

of   the   case   and   in   very  cryptic   orders   has   granted   bail  to   the

respondent­accused. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the

High   Court   was   not   right   in   allowing   the   applications   for   bail

filed   by   the   respondent­accused.   Hence,   the   impugned   orders

passed by the High Court are set aside. The appeals are allowed. 
 26

32. The   respondent­accused   is   on   bail.   His   bail  bonds   stand

cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the concerned

jail authorities within a period of two weeks from today.  

……………………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO] 

…………………………….J.
[B.R. GAVAI]

……………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI; 
17TH DECEMBER, 2021.