“A Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case,” says Supreme Court in honor killing case

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal in the Rohit Bishnoi vs the State of Rajasthan & Anr. case against the Rajasthan High Court’s order that granted bail to the respondents in honour killing. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court including Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice BV Nagarathna. The top Court set aside the ‘cryptic’ and ‘casual’ orders of the HC and observed that “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 a vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.” During the Court proceedings, the counsel contended that the bail granted to the accuseds was without any reasoning in an appropriate manner. 

While giving the judgment, Justice Nagarathna observed, “High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. Instead, the High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness in the trial and on the basis thereof, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner. The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents by passing very cryptic and casual orders, de hors cogent reasoning.” The top Court bench ordered “a Court considering the grant of bail must not engage in an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case.” It added, “we are of the view that the High Court while passing the impugned orders has not taken into account even a single material aspect of the case. Aso, the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the respondents-accused.” 

Also Read: Legal Articles