SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Order

Order granting or refusing bail – Reasoned order – Necessity of – Held: Recording of reasons is necessary since the accused/prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail – It would help the appellate court to appreciate and consider the reasonings for grant or refusal of bail – At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon the merit of the case, should be avoided. 985 A B C D E F G H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R. A Allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 1603/19 and dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1605/19, the Court HELD: 1.1 Expression of prima facie reasons for granting or refusing to grant bail is a requirement of law especially where such bail orders are appealable so as to indicate application of mind to the matter under consideration and the reasons for conclusion. Recording of reasons is necessary since the accused/ prosecution/victim has every right to know the reasons for grant or refusal to grant bail. This will also help the appellate court to appreciate and consider the reasonings for grant or refusal to grant bail. But giving reasons for exercise of discretion in granting or refusing to grant bail is different from discussing the merits or demerits of the case. At the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching upon the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. Observing that at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided. [Para 17][997-G-H; 998-A- B]

1.2 The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well–settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:– the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. It cannot be said that “flight risk” of economic offenders should be B C D E F G H

SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 987 looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot be put in a straight–jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, such consideration including as to “flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved. [Para 22][999-F- H; 1000-A-C]