RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY Vs. SUDARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) While liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all round effort on the part of Law Courts to protect such liberties of individuals - but this protection can be made available to the deserving ones only since the term protection cannot by itself be termed to be absolute in any and every situation but stand qualified depending upon the exigencies of the situation. It is on this perspective that in the event of there being committal of a heinous crime it is the society that needs a protection from these elements since the latter are having the capability of spreading a reign of terror so as to disrupt the life and the tranquillity of the people in the society. The protection thus to be allowed upon proper circumspection depending upon the fact situation of the matter. It is in this context the observations of this Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 684 seem to be rather apposite. This Court observed in Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) as below :-

(3.) Grant of bail 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. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts however do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic consideration for the grant of bail - more heinous is a crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.