Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (koli) & Anr: Consent Of Parties Cannot Obviate The Duty Of The High Court To Indicate Its Reasons: SC

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
20 April, 2021

JUDGES:
Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

PARTIES:
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod(Plaintiff)
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli) & Anr.(Respondent)

SUMMARY

The following judgement deals with the significant decision which came out to be a critical improvement with respect to the law relatingto bail.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The Division Bench comprises of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M. R. Shah, articulated a significant judgment which came out to be a critical improvement with respect to the law relating to bail. The Bench not just reprimanded the act of lower Courts of attaching caveat for not treating the decision as precedent yet in addition emphasized on the requirement for reasoned disposal of bail matters.
2. The cluster of five appeals were raised from the orders of the Gujarat High Court giving bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, six people who had been implicated in five homicidal deaths.
3. The appellant was the source on whose explanation, the FIR was enrolled with regard to an incident which occurred in Hamirpur which prompted the commission of five homicides had its root in a land dispute.
4. The appellant claimed that he and his brother had gone to their farm and when they were returning home in a vehicle with other five people. They came to the untarred street through the farm, two people came out along and they waylaid them.As the informant and others tried to flee from the scene, he saw the homicidal incident resulted in the passing of five people.

IMPORTANT PROVISION

Constitution of India:
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

ISSUES

The major issue concerned in this case-

• Whether the appeal is maintainable or not?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned that the consent of parties can't obviate the obligation of the High Court to demonstrate its reasons why it has either granted or rejected bail as a result of the application has a critical bearing on the freedom of the accused.
2. The order of the Hon’ble High Court was without any awareness or elaboration of the serious nature of the offence. The Bench expressed, "The perversity lies in the failure of the High Court to consider an important circumstance which has a bearing on whether bail should be granted".

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble court observed that the account of reasons in a judicial order guarantees the thought process underlying the order is dependent upon scrutiny and that it fulfills target guidelines of reason and justice. The impugned orders were held to be spoiled with perversity and thus, were set aside. The appeal was permitted and the all the accused were to give up forthwith.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement