Case title:
Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Bhava & Anr. clubbed with, Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Musthafa & Anr.
Date of Judgment:
April 22, 2022
Bench:
CJI. N.V. Ramana
J. Krishna Murari
J. Hima Kohli
Parties:
Appellant – Imran
Respondents - Mr. Mohammed Bhava and Mr. Mohammed Musthafa
SUBJECT
The Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the present case were filed to challenge the orders of the Karnataka High Court, granting bail to two persons accused in a case of assault and murder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the leave to appeal and deliberated on the scope of cancellation of bail of an accused even if no supervening circumstances arose after the grant of bail.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Article 136, Constitution of India–This Article provides the Supreme Court with the power to grant special leave to appeal before it from any order, decree, judgment, or sentence passed by any court or tribunal in India. If the leave is granted, then the SLP is converted into a Civil or Criminal Appeal, depending upon the factual matrix of a particular case.
Article 139A, Constitution of India – This Article provides the Supreme Court with the power to club the cases involving the same or substantially similar questions of lawpending before it or before one or more High Courts. In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court utilized this power to club two SLPs involving substantially similar questions of law.
OVERVIEW
- In the present case, the respondents along with 8 other persons had allegedly assaulted and murdered the father of the appellant. So, an FIR was registered against them u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. Later on, Sections 114, 109, and 120B of the IPC were also included in the chargesheet.
- The Respondents filed regular and anticipatory Bail applications before the Court of Sessions. But both the applications were rejected. So,they preferred applications before the High Court. Their applications were allowed by the High Court on the reasoning that all other co-accused were also granted bail. But, later on, the bails granted to all other accused persons were canceled by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the High Court has exercised its discretion in a mechanical manner by overlooking established principles while granting bail to the accused persons.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It was argued by the Appellant that the High Court has erred in its judgment by failing to consider the gravity of the offences and over looking the eye-witness statements.
- Furthermore, it was contended that upon perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the respondents had instigated and participated in the commission of heinous crimes. So, they were not entitled to any discretionary relief from the court.
- Another primary contention of the Appellant was that the High Court failed to consider the threat that got posed to the prosecution witnesses by the grant of bail to the persons involved in a premeditated murder case.
- It was also submitted that the other accused persons whose bail was canceled by the High Court and the Supreme Court had not yet surrendered and were threatening the appellant and other eye-witnesses.
- The Appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598] to argue that even though the grant of bail is a discretionary power but it must be exercised judiciously.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No.658 of 2022:
- The Respondent countered the arguments of the Appellant by contending that he had no role in the offence and that he was named in the FIR only because of personal animosity. He submitted that he was merely trying to separate the persons involved in the offence.
- The judgment in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427] was relied upon to argue that in bail jurisprudence, the basic rule is to grant bail and not jail.
Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2022:
- It was argued that the name of the respondent was added to the FIR after the appellant made a statement u/s 161 CrPC and that the appellant is not acting independently.
- Furthermore, it was contended that the allegations made in the SLP were not supported by the material on record in the present case.
- Various judgments of the Supreme Court were relied upon by the Respondent to argue that a bail that has already been granted to a person cannot be canceled mechanically. There must be “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances” for directing the cancellation of bail.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court relied upon Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 854] to observe that for cancellation of bail, certain supervening circumstances impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to the accused.But the bail could be revoked by a superior court if the subordinate court ignored the material on record, the gravity of the offence, or the societal impact of the offence while granting the bail to the accused
- So, it was observed that where bail was granted mechanically, it would be liable to be set aside by a superior court. The bail must be granted based on well-settled principles laid down by the judgments of the Supreme Court.
- After perusing through the material available on record, especially the statements of eye-witnesses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there was sufficient prima-facie evidence to show the involvement of the Respondents in the offence and that the High Court failed to consider the said “relevant evidentiary material” against the respondents.
CONCLUSION
After making the aforementioned observations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of Bail passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and directed the respondents to surrender before the Trial Court within 2 weeks. In this case, the Court made significant observations highlighting the need for judicious exercise of discretion by the lower courts while granting bail to the accused persons. Further, it clarified that the superior court could cancel a bail if the lower court granted it in a mechanical manner and without proper perusal of the material on record, even though no supervening circumstances arose later on.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
