Bombay High Court directs lower courts not to use rubber stamps with blank spaces for bail orders; says bail orders should be reasoned

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently ordered that bail applications of accused persons have to be decided by subordinate court/ magistrates by way of speaking orders and courts/ judges should not use rubber stamps for deciding bail applications [Ashokrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.].The Court expressed concerns over a bail order passed by a magistrate which was rendered on ‘rubber stamp with blank spaces’, which are filled by inserting bond amount with no other details.“Grant of bail is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate, who is expected to apply his mind after considering the material on record and is required to be granted or rejected by a speaking order. A Magistrate’s order on a bail application certainly cannot be rendered on a rubber stamp without containing any reasons for grant of bail”, the Court held.While hearing an appeal against an order, a division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes also noted that there was no apparent authorization of High Court for the use of rubber stamp to grant bail. The Court, therefore, directed subordinate courts/ magistrates to desist from making use of such rubber stamps for deciding bail applications in future. "We deprecate this practice, if it does exist in any of the Courts subordinate to this Court and deem it appropriate to circulate this judgment to all concerned District/Sessions Courts, which shall be sent by the concerned Registrar of this Court alongwith a copy of the bail order referred to by us in this judgment, with a specific directions that the subordinate Courts/Magistrates shall desist from making use of such rubber stamps for deciding bail applications in future," the Court said in its judgment..The Court was hearing an appeal challenging an order of detention against one, Ashokrao Pawar (appellant), under provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act. Pawar claimed that the detention order was passed despite a 2018 High Court order quashing the order of externment. Pawar claimed that none of the incidents which allegedly led to the detention order would amount to causing breach of public order..The bench concluded that the order under challenge was passed on the basis of wrong material and, hence, it was unsustainable. In light of this, court also quashed the order of externment against Pawar and he was ordered to be released unless required in any other case..[Read order]