SC: Detailed reason in bail order not necessary, but basic facts will remain

The Supreme Court has said that though it is not incumbent on a court to give detailed reasons while granting bail to an accused in a criminal case, but at the same time the courts can’t be oblivious of the material facts of the case, including the nature of the crime alleged against the accused; the severity of punishment that may follow if allegations are established; criminal antecedents; and one’s ability to influence witnesses and tampering with evidence.

The top court has also said that courts, while granting bail, have to guard against elaborate reasoning, particularly when the case is at its initial stages and yet to crystallise and order granting bail should not give the impression whether the case against the accused may result in conviction or acquittal.

“It is not necessary for a court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at its initial stage and yet to crystallise,” said a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna in a recent judgment.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Nagarathna, however, said: “There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or by contrast in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail.”

Making a distinction between not giving detailed reasoning and keeping in view the basic facts—nature of crime and severity of punishment while granting bail—Justice Nagarathna said, “However, the court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused and severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction.”

Besides this, other factors that the court granting bail has to keep in view include “reasonable apprehensions of witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of evidence; frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges against the accused.”