Delhi : According to the Supreme Court, unreasoned orders carry the 'vice of arbitrariness since reasoning is at the heart of the judicial system, it said on Tuesday while setting aside the "cryptic' order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to a man accused of raping his niece
NV Ramana and Justice Kr had observed in a judgment delivered on a petition of an alleged rape survivor seeking cancellation of bail of her uncle, a habitual offender, and about 20 cases filed against him which had not been mentioned in the order of the HC.
Furthermore, the top court pointed out that the High Court did not take into account the influence that the accused may have over the victim, given that he is the victim's elder family member.
"Reasoning is the lifeblood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness," the CJI said.
In the verdict, the court also addressed cryptic ball orders that dealt with proof when considering such pleas, stating, "At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of the trial."
The bench referred to judgements and said while dealing with bail pleas, the courts should keep in mind the factors like "position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence, of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses..."
The prosecution claims that the accused, who has been charged in more than 20 other criminal cases, raped his niece at her home in May 2021, following which he was arrested.
In a ruling on September 20, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail after taking into account the facts and arguments of the parties.
Concerning the high court order, the verdict said, in addition to general observations, "nowhere have the actual facts of the case been adverted to. There appears to be no reference to the factors that ultimately led the High Court to grant bail. In fact, no reasoning is apparent from the impugned order."
The High Court set aside the bail order, describing its reasoning as 'the lifeblood of the judicial system.
"In the present case, respondent no.2 accused has been accused of committing the grievous offence of rape against his young niece of nineteen years. The fact that respondent no. 2 accused is a habitual offender and nearly twenty cases registered against him has not even found mention in the impugned order," it stated.
Further, it contended that the HC had failed to consider the influence that the accused may have over the victim as an elder family member. In an offense of this nature, a three month prison sentence was not sufficient to convince the court to grant bail, it stated.