Grant of bail, by High Court to accused-respondents in this case, charge-sheeted after investigation for offences under Ss. 302, 307, 201 and 120-B IPC, by non-speaking order, and without taking into consideration any of material forming part of charge-sheet even to find out whether there is any material collected during the investigation involving the accused for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, whether it is a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail or not. Without even considering seriousness of offence, only observations made by High Court were that looking to possibility that trial may take long time to conclude, it was just and proper to enlarge respondents on bail, is unsustainable.
[Rahul Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2023) 7 SCC 781]
Case Comment: In a case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in which one person was guilty, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the material collected during the investigation. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that the only observations made by the High Court are in paragraph 4 which reads as under: “4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.”
When the accused are chargesheeted after the investigation, the High Court ought to have taken note of and/or considered the material collected during the investigation even to find out whether there is any material collected during the investigation involving the accused for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, whether it is a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail or not. The order passed is non speaking liable to be quashed.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/