Summary
Unreasoned bail grants to seven accused in a murder prosecution were set aside. Although a bail court need not make final findings, its order must show application of mind to the relevant prosecution material and contain at least prima facie reasons. The alleged manner of the offence and recorded antecedents made these cases unsuitable for bail. Compliance with bail conditions since release did not cure the defective original grants.
Issues
- Whether bail orders without reasons or consideration of the relevant material could stand.
- Whether subsequent compliance with bail conditions prevented interference.
Held
- A bail order must disclose why release or refusal is justified and show that the court considered relevant facts and material. Categorical merits findings are unnecessary at this stage, but a bare statement that the case is fit for bail is insufficient. (¶ 11–13)
- The FIR, antecedents placed by the State and manner of the alleged murder were material factors omitted by the High Court. On the record considered, the Supreme Court agreed with the Sessions Judge’s refusal of bail. (¶ 14–17)
- Absence of subsequent breach of bail conditions did not require preserving grants which were unjustified on the relevant considerations. The resulting observations remained prima facie and were not to influence the trial. (¶ 16–20)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court bail orders set aside and bail applications dismissed. All seven accused directed to surrender before the Sessions Court for custody as undertrials. Expeditious trial on merits directed, uninfluenced by the bail observations.