MERUBHAI RAMABHAI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the provisions of sections 439 (2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, original complainant, has challenged the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No.696 of 2007 whereby respondent No.2 was ordered to be released on bail.

(2.) It was submitted, and fairly conceded by learned A.P.P. as also learned counsel Mr.V.M.Pancholi, appearing for respondent No.2, that the impugned order did not contain or indicate requisite reasons for grant of bail even as a prima facie conclusion was recorded to the effect that the applicant therein was involved in the alleged offences. It is not clear from the impugned order as to which police papers, statements of witnesses taken during investigation and the arguments required the court to grant bail without entering into merits of the case.

(3.) Recent judgments of the Supreme Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 525], Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Another [(2005) 7 SCC 326] and Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 507] clearly require the court to indicate in the order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. Though a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case. The court is also required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.