The Supreme Court has held that orders of courts in bail cases should neither be too long and elaborate nor come too late as both violate the constitutional mandate of personal liberty.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol said judges, while rejecting or granting bail to accused persons, should not slip into extensive deliberations on the merits of the case or evidence involved. Such “long” debates at the stage of bail may prejudice the case itself for the accused.
Again, once a case for bail is reserved for orders, the pronouncement of the decision should not take too long. Every day of waiting is a dent on the personal liberty of an undertrial.
The Bench underscored the importance of brevity in bail orders and the need for promptness in their pronouncement while allowing bail to Kadar Nazir Inamdar, represented by advocates Sana Raees Khan and Sriram Parakkat, who is an accused in the murder of Shiv Sena leader Rahul Shetty in 2020.
Ms. Khan argued that the Bombay High Court had rejected his bail application in a “detailed’‘ 16-page order elaborating the merits and evidence of the case. Moreover, the High Court had kept the case reserved for orders for three months, from July to September last year. The court agreed with Ms. Khan that Inamdar had been behind bars for nearly three years. He was accused of only conspiracy. His co-accused was released on bail way back in 2021.
The Maharashtra counsel had vehemently objected to the plea for bail, saying the High Court had discussed the “circumstances” of the crime which “clearly point the finger towards” Inamdar.
The Supreme Court however deprecated the “practice of detailed elaboration of evidence in the orders granting/rejecting bail/anticipatory bail and the practice of long delay between reserving the matter for order and pronouncing the order”.
“In matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, courts are expected to decide the matters expeditiously,” the court noted.
The Bench referred to a recent order passed by the top court in Subhaschandra Gangwal versus Maharashtra and a 1980 judgment in Niranjan Singh versus Prabhakar Kharote, both of which had held that judges need to only have a prima facie appreciation of the case, and not a “detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits”, while passing bail orders.
