The High Court cannot skip its duty to issue reasoned orders to grant or refuse bail despite the parties having given their consent – SC

The Apex Court found that the parties’ consent would not justify the High Court’s act of failing to state the reasons for granting or refusing the bail.

The bank found that the consent of the parties cannot prevent a high court from applying its case law and gave the reasons for its decision to file or refuse bail.

In the present case, the High Court of Gujarat granted bail under Section 439 of the CrPC to six defendants arrested for allegedly involved in the deaths of five people.

In granting the bail, the High Court found that the parties did not press for the reasons for the decision. The Apex court disagreed with this approach, noting that while high courts or session courts are not expected to evaluate the facts as there is no trial yet, they can use their case law and give reasons, be it in short time. for that decision.

The bank also stated that proper enforcement of criminal law is in the public interest and safeguarding the interests of the victim and their families.

The bank ruled that such orders could not be prevented from judicial review and the courts should use case law before deciding on matters that tend to prejudice a wider public interest.

The bank also stated that while granting a security deposit under Section 439 is entirely discretionary, it should be exercised reasonably and according to standards of reason and fairness.

The bank stressed that the gravity and gravity of the crime should also be taken into account before issuing such an order.

The bank therefore found the Gujarat Supreme Court’s observations to be incorrect and inappropriate.

Comments are closed.