From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday cancelled the bail of an elder family member, holding that the Rajasthan High Court failed to consdier his influence over the victim , his niece.
In a judgment passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari said reasoning is the lifeblood of the judicial system while an unreasoned order by the High Court suffers the “vice of arbitrariness.” Every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system, it held.
The Bench’s observation came on a plea of an alleged rape survivor seeking cancellation of bail of her uncle, a habitual offender with some 20 cases registered against him which were not found mention in the High Court order.
The apex court noted that the High Court has failed to consider the influence that the accused may have over the victim as an elder family member.
On cryptic bail orders dealing with proof at the time of considering such pleas, the court said: “At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of the trial.”
As per the prosecution, the accused, who has been facing around 20 other criminal cases, had raped his niece in May 2021 at her residence and was arrested following the registration of the FIR.
The Rajasthan High Court, on September 20, granted bail after noting down the facts and submissions of the parties in the case.
Dealing with the high court order, the verdict said apart from general observations, “nowhere have the actual facts of the case been adverted to. There appears to be no reference to the factors that ultimately led the High Court to grant bail. In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the impugned order.”
“In the present case, respondent no.2 accused has been accused of committing the grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years. The fact that respondent no.2 accused is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases registered against him has not even found mention in the impugned order,” it said.
The period of imprisonment, being only three months, was not of such a magnitude as to push the court towards granting bail in an offence of this nature, it said.
