JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Sohini Bai v. State of Rajasthan decided on 4-9-97 (S. B. Criminal) Misc. Bail Application No. 2473/98) (sic) learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in dismissing the bail application without assigning any reasons. Learned Judge has not given any reason in rejecting the bail application in view of the Supreme Court Judgment reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : (1980 Cri LJ 426). There is lot of substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In Sohini Bai's case (supra) this Court considered not only the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : (1980 Cri LJ 426) but also considered other Judgments of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 149 : (1987 Cri LJ 197) and 1996 Cri LJ 2469 (SC) (sic) (para 6). In aforesaid judgments the Supreme Court has only observed that the Courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain from indulging in elaborate reasoning in their orders in justification of grant or non-grant of bail.

(2.) Considerations which must be kept on the mental screen and precautions which may be taken in disposing of an application for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, require to be spelled out in the order that the provision is meaningfully applied and judicial discretion is exercised in an appropriate manner in such matters.

(3.) As was visualized by the Law Commission sometimes false accusations may be levelled against persons just with a view to cause them embarrassment arising out of the social stigma of an arrest and the circumstance that a man has to remain in jail albeit till he is released on bail. It may also happen that the competent authority may place a person (against whom an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence is levelled) under arrest, say on the eve of a holiday or at a time when the Courts are closed. The purpose of Sec. 438 inter alia appears to be to secure that such a person is not obliged to go to jail till he is able to move the Court for being released on bail.