Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking
through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising
discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same
judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be
granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning,
this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order,
but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An
order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be
sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of
bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter
being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary
from case to case. While placement of the accused in the
society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be
a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the
same should always be coupled with other circumstances
warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is
one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail --
the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance
of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on
the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)