Principle of Natural Justice is embodied u/a. 14 of the Constitution, thus, is indispensable in any circumstances and all laws must be in consonance with this. Each party’s right to appeal is undermined when there is no reasoned order to challenge the same before the appellate courts. This applies to every case where the establishment of proper and complete facts are important for assessment. It brings accountability, transparency and credibility to the judgment granting bail. Particularly in the offence of murder, where no monetary consideration can compensate for the human loss, upholding judicial faith by way of strict compliance of natural justice is paramount. If these fundamental principles are not followed, we will be sent back to the colonial era where arbitrary arrests and conviction was the norm. The audi alteram partem is subject to exceptions. Such exceptions may be provided by law or by such necessary implications where no other interpretation is possible. Currently under UAPA, the government has unfettered discretion to announce a group as banned entities and thus bypassing due process as part of law itself. Many HCs in murder suspects matters have noticed and diluted the same. For example, there cannot be a pre-FIR registration trial which is dealt in depth by the apex court in Anju Chaudhary case. If an accused person or suspect is heard before registration of FIR in India, it would be difficult to maintain law and order as police authorities may be prone to misuse the given unfettered power. The Hon’ble apex court in 2022 in Satender v. CBI held that ny non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrestFor example, there cannot be a pre-FIR registration trial which is dealt in depth by the apex court in Anju Chaudhary case. If an accused person or suspect is heard before registration of FIR in India, it would be difficult to maintain law and order as police authorities may be prone to misuse the given unfettered power. The Hon’ble apex court in 2022 in Satender v. CBI held that ny non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused for grant of bail. Section 41 of CrPC deals with conditions when there can be suspicion that a suspect can flee or when an arrest be made. Section 41A inserted by 2010 amendment states that the procedure for appearance before the police officer who is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Thus any non compliance be it arbitrary arrest, failed to observe spot panchnama, evidence planting calls for successful bail plea since the code is violated which is nothing but provisions of natural justice.
| Sr.No. | Case Name | Relevant Paragraph |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Brijmani Devi v. Pappu
Kumar and anr., Supreme Court (2022) 4 SCC 497 Significance: The Apex Court clarified that though elaborate reasons are not required to be assigned while granting bail, a cryptic order devoid of any reasoning is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. |
The appellant/informant saw the respondent-accused killing her son in her house. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR against the respondent-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 24. The Latin maxim “cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”, is also apposite. 25.While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. 28. Thus, while elaborating reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail, at the same time an order dehors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail.It would be only a non speaking order which is an instance of violation of principles of natural justice. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. |
| 2. | Manoj Kumar Khokhar v.
State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501 Supreme Court |
Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
|
| 3. | Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 Suprem Court |
“38. … We disapprove of the observations [Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2987] of the High Court in a succession of orders in the present case recording that the counsel for the parties “do not press for a further reasoned order”…..The consent of parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused bail.This is for the reason that the outcome of the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The rights of the victims and their families are at stake as well. These are not matters involving the private rights of two individual parties, as in a civil proceeding. The proper enforcement of criminal law is a matter of public interest. We must, therefore, disapprove of the manner in which a succession of orders in the present batch of cases has recorded that counsel for the “respective parties do not press for further reasoned order”. If this is a euphemism for not recording adequate reasons, this kind of a formula cannot shield the order from judicial scrutiny. |
| 4. | Anju Chaudhary v. State of
U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384 Supreme Court |
The very purpose of fair and just investigation shall stand frustrated if pre-registration hearing is required to be granted to a suspect. It is not that the liberty of an individual is being taken away or is being adversely affected, except by the due process of law. Where the officer-in-charge of a police station is informed of a heinous or cognizable offence, it will completely destroy the purpose of proper and fair investigation if the suspect is required to be granted a hearing at that stage and is not subjected to custody in accordance with law. There would be predominant possibility of a suspect escaping the process of law. The entire scheme of the Code unambiguously supports the theory of exclusion of audi alteram partem pre-registration of an FIR. Upon registration of an FIR, a person is entitled to take recourse to the various provisions of bail and anticipatory bail to claim his liberty in accordance with law. It cannot be said to be a violation of the principles of natural justice |
| 5. | Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: Supreme Court |
The discretion of arrest to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. |
Subscribe
0 Comments