ROHIT BISHNOI versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 24-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 502 : 2023 INSC 642
502
ROHIT BISHNOI
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023)
JULY 24, 2023
[B.V. NAGARATHNA AND
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions
regarding bail – On facts, an honour killing matter, wherein victim
in extra-marital-live in relationship with the sister-in-law of the
respondents – Allegation that the respondents conspired to kill the
victim and later shot him dead – FIR lodged by the brother of the
victim against the respondents – Respondents charged u/s. 302 and
120B IPC and ss. 3 r/w ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Bail
application – Grant of bail by the High Court, by a casual and
cryptic order – Justification of – Held: While liberty of an individual
is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering bail
application, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the
accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing
on the case – On facts, it cannot be said that the accusations against
the respondents are prima-facie wholly false, frivolous or vexatious
in nature, so as to justify grant of bail – Prosecution has brought
on record adequate material that would prima-facie point towards
the guilt of the accused – High Court while passing the impugned
orders did not take into account even a single material aspect of
the case, instead, referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness
in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant
bail, by passing a cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent
reasoning – Thus, not a fit case for the grant of bail to the
respondents, given the seriousness of the allegations against them
– Impugned judgments passed by the High Court set aside – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss. 120B and 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 3, 25 and
27.
s 439 – Grant of bail – Factors to be considered – Discussed.
Maxims : “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” – Meaning of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The primary considerations which must be
placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: the
seriousness of the offence; the likelihood of the accused fleeing
from justice; the impact of release of the accused on the
prosecution witnesses; likelihood of the accused tampering with
evidence. While such a list is not exhaustive, it may be stated
that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail
application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted
from a judicious exercise of its discretion. An order granting bail
in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer
from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. An
order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic
manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail,
is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising power
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 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. [Para 18-21][512-G-H; 513-B, D-E]
1.2 While 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 on 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 vis aÌ vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.
[Para 22][513-F-H]
1.4 It is not necessary for a Court to assign elaborate reasons
or engage in a roving inquiry as to the merits of the prosecution’s
case while granting bail, particularly, when the trial is at the initial
stages and the allegations against the accused would not have
ROHIT BISHNOI v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.