Grant of bail under S. 439 though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and, thus, order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case and, thus, serious nature of accusations and facts having a bearing in the case cannot be ignored, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. Considering the material on record, there is a likelihood of respondent-accused absconding again or threatening witness if released on bail as the accused had earlier absconded. Further bail granted by High Court in casual manner by considering only probability of false implication. Further though High Court noted that there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the petitioner with regard to contesting panchayat elections, but this fact was not considered with regard to grant of bail, held not sustainable and set aside. The Bench expressed,
“It would be only a non-speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum.”
[Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497]