expected to give finding that in spite of the material, the accused is entitled to bail for some reasons. In such cases, it is the right of the society to know the reasons when bail is granted to the accused. If no reasons are given by the Court, feeling will be created in the Society that it is not getting justice and the persons having influence can do anything. This Court has no hesitation to hold that grant of relief to the applicants will have serious impact on the society and in the present case, it is not advisable to grant bail to the applicants. The provisions of section 437 and also section 439 of Cr.P.C. show that 'bail, not jail, is not rule of law'. Argument was advanced that right of accused of personal liberty is important consideration in the matters. There cannot be doubt about this proposition. In view of such right, the Court is expected to give reasons while rejecting bail application. But, it is the duty of the Court to strike balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of the Society. When the larger interest of the society is involved and the order made in favour of the accused is bound to affect the interest of the Society and when it is bound to give wrong signal to the society, the Court is not expected grant bail.
