an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind

Sec. 439—IPC, Secs. 302, 352, 34, 147, 148, 149—Bail—Grant of—On ground of parity—Challenge as to—Allegations of murder with common object In Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, which was relied on by Ms Bansuri Swaraj, learned counsel for the State of UP. Speaking for a two-Judge Bench, one of us (Justice D Y Chandrachud, J) observed: ―25. Merely recording ―having perused the record‖ and ―on the facts and circumstances of the case‖ does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion. 27. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court.

Case Law:

Aminuddin vs. State of U.P., 

Citation:

AIR 2022 SC 4546