Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Specific reasons must be there while granting or setting aside bail in dowry case
05 Jun 2021 03:21 pm
7th April 2021Supreme Court
Justices: DY Chandrachud and MR Shah
While considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. It was further said that the sentence which we have extracted earlier contains an omnibus amalgam of (i) the entire facts and circumstances of the case”,
(ii) “Submissions of learned counsel for the parties”.
(iii) “The nature of offence”.
(iv) “Evidence”.
(v) “Complicity of accused”.
It is followed by an observation that the “applicant has made out a case for bail, “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case”. This does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order”. The Hon’ble Court has further held that the seriousness of the alleged offence has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the allegation and that a telephone call was received from the accused in close-proximity to the time of death, making a demand. There are specific allegations of harassment against the accused on the ground of dowry”.
While setting aside the order of Hon’ble High Court, the Supreme Court has stated that “Any order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under section 439 of the crpc must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court in this case are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this court. It is the time that such a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice.”
