High Court has duty to record reasons while granting bail: Supreme Court sets aside 6 Gujarat High Court orders granting bail to 6 murder accused

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside six orders of Gujarat High Court granting bail to six persons accused in the murder of five [Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli)]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah stated that the High Court was “oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and to the severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction.”The Court also noted with disapproval that the High Court had not recorded sufficient reasons while granting bail to the accused. "Grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail – as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution – is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner," the judgment said. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice, it added. .The killings happened as a consequence of a land dispute.The High Court had granted bail to the first accused on October 22, 2020, and later granted similar orders to the rest of the accused on ground of parity stating that “parties do no press for reasoned orders.”.The appellant had contended that the presence of the accused, the pre-meditation on their part, the assault committed on persons belonging to the side of the informant and the resultant five homicidal deaths which form the genesis of the incident should be sufficient to deny bail..The gravity of crime ignored.The Supreme Court noted that the first aspect of the case which stared “in the face is the singular absence in the judgment of the High Court to the nature and gravity of the crime”.The failure of the High Court to consider the gravity of the offence made the order perverse. “The orders of the High Court are conspicuous in the absence of any awareness or elaboration of the serious nature of the offence. The perversity lies in the failure of the High Court to consider an important circumstance that has a bearing on whether bail should be granted. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction,” the Supreme Court said.The top court stated that in granting bail to the six accused, the “High Court has committed a serious mistake by failing to recognize material aspects of the case, rendering the orders of the High Court vulnerable to assail on the ground of perversity”..Ground of Parity.The top court further ruled that the High Court “evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity.”The judgment stated that parity while granting bail must focus upon role of the accused and merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.“In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law,” the judgment said..The observation that grant of bail would not be a precedent.The Supreme Court noted that the observation of the High Court while granting bail to the first accused that it shall not be considered as a precedent for any other person who is accused in the FIR on grounds of parity “does not constitute judicially appropriate reasoning”.The two-judge bench ruled that whether an order granting bail is a precedent on grounds of parity is a matter for future adjudication if and when an application for bail is moved on the grounds of parity on behalf of another accused.“In the event that parity is claimed in such a case thereafter, it is for that court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on reasons of parity is made out. In other words, the observations of the Single Judge which have been noticed above are inappropriate and erroneous,” the Supreme Court ruled.. “Do not press for a further reasoned order”.One of the important aspects noted by the apex court was that the High Court after granting bail to the first accused, did not furnish reasons while granting bail to other accused in subsequent orders. It merely stated “do not press for a further reasoned order”.The observation “do not press for a further reasoned order” by the High Court was not proper as it would obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail, the Supreme Court held. The two-judge bench ruled that the grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State, and the victims of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice.“It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail,” the Supreme Court observed..Though grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a matter of judicial discretion, there is a duty on the High Court to record reasons for the same. .“The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard that ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice,” the Supreme Court said setting aside the six orders of High Court. .The appeal seeking cancellation of bail was filed by Advocate on Record Jaikriti Jadeja. Senior Advocate Vinay Navare and Advocate Jadeja had appeared for the appellants. Advocate Aniruddha P Mayee appeared on behalf of State of Gujarat. Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the accused. .[Read Judgment]