DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
17th December 2021
JUDGES:
Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Justice B.R. Gavai
Justice B.V. Nagarathna
PARTIES:
Petitioner (s): Brijmani Devi
Respondent (s): Pappu Kumar and Anr.
SUBJECT
In the present case, setting aside the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, the Supreme Court explained the bail jurisdiction and held that if the bail order lacks reasons, the prosecution or the informant can challenge the same in front of higher forums.
OVERVIEW
1. In the present case, an appeal was been filed before the Supreme Court of India against two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which granted bail to the accused/respondent in two separate offenses.
2. The relevant facts of the case were as such:
a) The appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased Rupesh Kumar. She was also an eyewitness to the killing of her son Rupesh Kumar by the respondent.
b) An FIR was filed by the appellant on 19th Feb 2021 stating that her son Rupesh Kumar was sleeping in the room constructed on the roof of her house and a relative Deepak Kumar was also sleeping there. The appellant was sleeping in a different room when she heard some unusual noise and on inspection, she saw that the respondent was present in her house carrying a pistol. On discovery, the respondent caught the appellant and tied her mouth with his Gamchha (towel). The respondent then shot Rupesh Kumar in the head from his pistol and Deepak Kumar did the same as well in front of her. Consequently, the son of the appellant died. An FIR was subsequently filed by the appellant for the offense of murder of her son under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 27 of the Arms Act.
c) In 2017, another FIR was filed by the appellant's deceased son himself against the respondent/accused of causing serious bullet injury to him under sections 341, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The deceased in his ferdbayan in front of the ASI stated that when he was returning after meeting his friend, the respondent/accused fired and caused bullet injury to him.
d) After lodging the FIR in connection to the murder case, the respondent/accused absconded for about 7 months. He also threatened the appellant and her family to withdraw the complaint. A written complaint was then filed by the appellant on 30th September 2020 and the respondent/accused was subsequently arrested. The respondent/accused was then sent to judicial custody and also denied bail by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the respondent/accused suppressing his criminal antecedents made an application for bail in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the same was granted in connection to both cases via two different orders dated 22nd July 2021 and 13th September 2021.
3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused/respondent had been named in 8 cases and multiple cases were still pending against him. The counsel further stated that the High Court ‘has not assigned reasons for grant of bail in the instant cases and the accused/respondent could potentially be convicted for life as the crimes alleged were very serious. The respondent/accused was also a habitual offender and the High Court had erred in its judgment in granting the bail.
4. The counsel for the respondent/accused argued that accused no. 2 (Deepak Kumar) was the brother-in-law of the deceased and both of them were accused in another case in which the respondent/accused had been enlisted as a witness. The counsel also called in question the material facts of the case, contending that, accused no. 2 might have fired at the deceased but not the respondent as a gun was recovered from the accused no. 2 but not the respondent/accused. Moreover, there had been multiple cases against the deceased and the accused no. 2. The counsel further stated that the deceased was not even present at the scene of the crime but was 350 Kms away as his cell phone indicated. Hence, the allegations levied against the respondent/accused were false and the orders of the High Court required no interference.
5. The counsel for respondent/accused relied on the judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor which prescribed the approach of the Court of law while granting the bail. ‘The Court considering an application seeking bail cannot enter into an in-depth analysis of the case to hold a mini-trial of the case. It is also unnecessary to give lengthy reasons at the time of granting bail.’ It was contended that bail is the norm and jail is the exception.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1908
- Section 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 302- Punishment for murder.
- Section 307- Attempt to Murder.
- Section 341- Punishment for wrongful restraint.
The Arms Act, 1959
- Section 27- Punishment for using arms, etc.
ISSUES
1. Whether the High Court erred in its judgement while granting the bail to the accused?
JUDGMENT
1. The Court relied on multiple judgments to explain the rule of bail:
a) Gudikanti Narsimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978).
The nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent and the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice.
b) Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002).
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
c) Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra (2005).
The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime.
2. The Court also noted that it is not essential for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail particularly when the case is at the initial stage but at the same time a balance needs to be struck ‘between the nature of the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.’ The exercise of bail jurisdiction must be exercised very judicious manner and in accordance with settled principles of law.
3. The court also noted that the High Court failed to assess one more crucial aspect while granting the bail as the deceased and the respondent/accused had a previous enmity between them about contesting an Election as Mukhiya of Chhotki Tangraila Gram Panchayat.
4. The Court on considering the relevant circumstances of the case noted that ‘we do not think that these cases are fit cases for grant of bail to the respondent/accused in respect of the two serious accusations against him vis-à-vis the very same person namely deceased Rupesh Kumar.’
5. Commenting on the bail order the Court stated that the High Court was not right in granting bail to the accused. ‘The High court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and in very cryptic orders has granted bail.’
6. Consequently, both the orders of the High Court were set aside and the bail bond of the respondent/accused was cancelled.
CONCLUSION
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court pointed out the error in the judgment of the High Court of Patna which granted the bail to the accused. Multiple judicial pronouncements have stated that bail jurisdiction must be exercised in judicious manner and the failure of same could result in irreparable injustice.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
