Q. Can Consent Of Parties Obviate The Duty Of The High Court To Indicate Its Reasons Why It Has Either Granted Or Refuse Bail ?

A. NO.

Q. In A Given Case, While Granting Bail, The High Court Recorded That 'learned Advocates Appearing On Behalf Of The Respective Parties Do Not Press For Further Reasoned Order'. Discuss The Validity Of Such Impugned Order?

A. Impugned Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) LL 2021 SC 221

REASONS:

1. The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victims of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice.
2.  It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place.
3.  These observations while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding on the outcome of the trial.
4.  But the Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
5. The consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail.