When the person is arrested by Police and is presented before the nearest judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest u/s 57 of CrPC, 1973, this Bail Application may be moved before the concerned Magistrates Court, on the conclusion of the Police Custody so granted by the Magistrate on the earlier occasion, and therefore opposing the further Remand; or where the maximum Remand period of 14 days is over, and thereby the Accused is compulsorily to be sent to Judicial Custody (Jail)
1. The Criminal law machinery is set into motion when a person makes a complaint to the Police station (under section 154 of CrPC) or when he makes a private complaint to the Magistrate (under section 200 of CrPC) or the Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence on its own (under section 190 of CrPC). Also, the Police officer (under section 157 of CrPC), on the basis of information he has received, is empowered to take cognizance of commission of an offence, on its own. Also, the Constitutional courts of India, i.e. High Courts and Supreme Court are empowered to direct investigation of any case by CBI, and set the criminal law into motion.
2. When a cognizable offence is alleged to have been committed and a FIR is thus filed (under section 154 of CRPC) before the Police station, naming a person therein having committed that offence, the designated Police officer may arrest and detain that person (sections 41, 41A, 41B, 41C, 41D of CrPC), but only in strict compliance and in accordance with the provisions of CrPC and the law laid down by Apex Court in its various Rulings. [Chapter V, Section 41 to 60A) of CrpC, 1973], more particularly the Joginder Kumar case [AIR 1994 SC 1349] & Arnesh Kumar case [AIR 2014 SC 2756].
3. The personal liberty of the person is secured by obtaining “Bail” in the form of, either furnishing “surety” or by “depositing of certain cash amount” in lieu of Surety, or by “executing a Personal Release Bond”, before the Court / Officer In-Charge of the Police station, thereby securing to the Court / Police that the person seeking the release, would make himself present for Investigation and during the trial of the offence for which he is alleged to have committed.
No adverse Order if No adverse findings
1. It is typical for Courts and Judges, whilst passing Orders and decisions, (to commit basic and elementary mistakes, and most of the times consciously) outright overlooking some of the very material facts and evidences / submissions / Judgments cited, by the losing Party; and drive themselves to irrelevant consideration of facts.
2. Before discussing the aforesaid expression “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”, let us first broadly look at the decision making process.
3. Broadly, the decision making is a process wherein, having regard to the Reliefs claimed, the presiding Judge – (a) examine the (legality) of facts alleged, (b) examine the (legality) of stand of the adversary, (c) examine the materials and the evidences which are placed before him in support of the facts alleged by both the sides; (d) would record his reasoned finding (prima facie or conclusive) as to the existence or the non existence of the facts alleged.
4. The process of recording finding of facts is, having regard to the applicable laws and precedents, testing of facts and evidences, and drawing natural, logical and legal inferences and outcomes, which necessarily flows from those facts and evidences [the facts would mean those facts which are self evident or are admitted, or facts which are reasonably proved, disproved or not proved]. Appreciation of facts and evidence is also an exercise wherein the existence of certain facts and evidence, provokes or persuades the decision maker to reach a certain conclusion.
5. Once findings as to facts are arrived at, the decision follows, either granting the reliefs claimed for, or the denial of.
6. However, what is witnessed in many Orders of the Courts is – either (a) In the process of finding of facts, findings on significant material fact are not recorded at all, by overlooking all the materials and evidences and submissions of the losing party, which are placed on record; the evidences and submissions, which had a direct bearing on the decision of the Court; or (b) whilst recording finding as to material fact, some of the material facts agitated / evidences / submissions / Judgments cited are not dealt with. The situation (a) mainly occurs in discretionary jurisdiction Orders/ Interim /Ad-Interim Orders / and Orders passed at Appellate stage; and situation (b) occurs in Orders passed in original proceedings. [Material facts would mean such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed]
7. In wealth of judgments, the Apex Court and High Courts have insisted upon recording of reasons whilst arriving at findings of facts and law. In a case (AIR 2011 SCW 5486) before it, the Apex Court have observed to say that Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning, on law and facts.
8. Therefore, IF it is contempt of the Court, if reasoned findings are not recorded, then it is regressive and aggravated contempt, to not to record findings at all.
9. Can we really compel the Courts to record finding of fact in their decisions? At least the Apex Court in a case before it [(2006) 9 SCC 222], have said Yes. The Apex Court have held that before subjecting a party to the adverse decision, adverse findings must be recorded against it.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, have set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
It was a case where the Defendant in a Suit gave undertaking to the trial Court that Defendants will not interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff’s land. The Suit was disposed of on the basis of above undertaking. Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved Execution Application under O.21 R.32 before the trial Court alleging that Defendants have constructed some structure on the Suit land. The trial Court dismissed said Execution Application. The Plaintiff challenged trial Court’s Order before High Court. The High Court directed the Defendants to clear the encroachment effected by them on the suit land. In this backdrop, the Apex Court set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
10. The Illustration: To illustrate the proposition of “Findings”, agitated hereinabove, therefore, in a Writ Petition, the High Court, before refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy, and depending upon the nature of facts alleged, must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) fundamental rights of the Petitioners are not infringed; and / or (b) principles of natural justice have not been infringed; or (c) the Authority / Subordinate court / Tribunals have acted within their respective jurisdiction. This is because, there are ample judgments of Apex Court, wherein it is held that, on the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds in the case, notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy, the High Courts must exercise their Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [AIR 1970 SC 645; AIR 2010 SCW 7184; AIR 1999 SC 22; AIR 2012 SCW 616; AIR 2003 SC 2120; AIR 2005 SC 3936; AIR 1958 SC 86 (Constitution Bench Judg); (2011) 5 SCC 697; AIR 1969 SC 556; (2015) 6 All MR 35 (BHC)]
Similarly, in an Application for Anticipatory Bail, the Session Judge / High Court, before rejecting Anticipatory Bail must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) the Applicant is not cooperating in the investigation; (b) custodial interrogation of the Accused is essential; or (c) There is a apprehension of tampering of the witness by the Applicant; or (d) There is a possibility of the Applicant to flee from justice; or that there is a possibility of the Accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
11. The necessity of recording of finding on material facts, would take away the arbitrary and whimsical discretion of the Courts, for, they have to record findings, based on facts and evidences which are explicitly placed on record. And when the facts / evidence are seen large, the Courts may abstain from recording illogical findings, which are contrary to facts / evidence placed on record, and seen large.
This is how the captioned proposition should come into play, that is, “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”.
The concentrated view which emerges runs to the effect that every decision / Order of the court, be interim or final, must be based on findings of facts recorded by it, whether prima facie or conclusive, on such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed
The User may fill up the requisite details in the table below and they would be furnished at their email address the relevant Template.