Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Murder Case: Prashant Singh Rajput vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8 October 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 714
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and B V Nagarathna, J

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail to accused individuals in a murder case when there are specific allegations against them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question. This case revolves around a brutal murder and the subsequent grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court, which the Supreme Court found to be flawed. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Prashant Singh Rajput on 29 September 2020, at the Majholi Police Station, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The FIR alleged that Ujiyar Singh, along with his sons Chandrabhan Singh and Suryabhan Singh, and their driver Jogendra Singh, were involved in the murder of Vikas Singh, the brother-in-law of the complainant. The incident occurred at Negai Tiraha, where the accused allegedly arrived in a jeep and attacked Vikas Singh due to a prior rivalry. Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh allegedly shot Vikas Singh, while Jogendra Singh held him, and Suryabhan Singh assaulted the complainant.

The dispute between the deceased, Vikas Singh, and the accused family stemmed from prior complaints. Vikas Singh had previously accused Ujiyar Singh and Suryabhan Singh of threatening him and his workers. He also accused Jogendra Singh of stealing illegally excavated sand. Conversely, Ujiyar Singh had filed a complaint against Vikas Singh, alleging that Vikas Singh was the head of a sand mafia.

Following the incident, Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh applied for anticipatory bail, which was initially rejected by the trial court, but later granted by the High Court. The High Court’s decision was based on a police report that stated Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present at the crime scene. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh, citing the omissions in the investigating officer’s report and the specific roles assigned to them by eyewitnesses. However, the High Court, relying on the investigating officer’s report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), granted them anticipatory bail. The High Court’s decision was based on the premise that the investigation did not reveal their presence at the crime scene. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court overlooked the deficiencies highlighted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial court regarding the investigation.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions at play in this case are:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: This section deals with the grant of anticipatory bail, which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest. The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of the person, and the likelihood of influencing the course of the investigation or tampering with evidence.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: This section deals with the report of the police officer on completion of the investigation.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements.

These provisions are crucial in understanding the legal context of the case. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of considering all aspects of the investigation and the seriousness of the offense when granting anticipatory bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Prashant Singh Rajput):

• The High Court exclusively relied on the investigating officer’s report, ignoring the FIR and eyewitness statements that placed Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh at the crime scene.
• The High Court overlooked the observations made by the JMFC and the trial court, which pointed out deficiencies in the investigation.
• The FIR and statements of the appellant and other eyewitnesses clearly stated that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh had specific roles in the crime. Jogendra Singh held the deceased while he was being shot, and Suryabhan Singh assaulted the appellant.
• The High Court ignored the gravity of the crime and the material evidence available.

Respondent’s Arguments (Jogendra Singh):

• The investigating officer’s report indicated that Jogendra Singh was not present at the crime scene but was in Jabalpur.
• The FIR filed by Ujiyar Singh provided an alternate explanation, stating that Ujiyar Singh fired in self-defense.
• The injuries sustained by Ujiyar Singh during the incident have not been explained.

Respondent’s Arguments (Suryabhan Singh):

• The FIR was filed due to enmity between the families, and Vikas Singh had criminal antecedents.
• The nature of the injury suffered by the appellant was inconsistent with being hit by the butt of a rifle.
• The appellant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, which claimed Suryabhan Singh also shot at him, was inconsistent with the FIR and the statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.

State of Madhya Pradesh’s Arguments:

• The crime was of a serious nature.
• Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were absconding while Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh were in judicial custody.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the seriousness of the crime and the specific allegations against the accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118]* to distinguish between the assessment of an order granting bail and an application for cancellation of bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]* to state that the cancellation of bail is in a different compartment than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse.
• The Supreme Court followed Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal and Others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 1031]* to reiterate the considerations for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature of the offense, role of the person, and likelihood of influencing the investigation.
• The Supreme Court followed Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]* to reiterate the considerations which ought to weigh with the Court in deciding an application for the grant of anticipatory bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597]* to state the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, such as the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and ‘the larger interests of the public or the State’

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. The Court found that the High Court had relied solely on the investigating officer’s report, ignoring the FIR, eyewitness statements, and the deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the crime and the specific allegations against the accused. The court stated that the High Court did not apply the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The seriousness of the murder case.
• The specific roles attributed to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the FIR and eyewitness accounts.
• The deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by the JMFC and the trial court, which the High Court overlooked.
• The need to consider all material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offense, when granting anticipatory bail.
• The principle that the correctness of an order granting bail is subject to assessment by an appellate or superior court.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of factual accuracy and thorough investigation in cases involving serious crimes like murder, while also applying the relevant legal principles related to anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the facts, the legal framework, and the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the overall context of the case when deciding on anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present at the crime scene, as per the investigating officer’s report. However, this interpretation was rejected due to the deficiencies in the investigation, the eyewitness accounts, and the specific allegations against the accused. The Court found that the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was not based on a proper application of the relevant legal principles.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was flawed. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the crime, the specific allegations against the accused, and the deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by the lower courts. The Court found that the High Court’s reliance on the investigating officer’s report was misplaced and that the High Court had failed to apply the correct principles for granting anticipatory bail. The Court stated that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the crime and the specific allegations against the accused.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving anticipatory bail. It emphasizes the need for a thorough and impartial investigation and the importance of considering all material aspects of a case, including the nature and gravity of the offense, when deciding on anticipatory bail. It also underscores the role of appellate courts in reviewing the correctness of orders granting bail.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles related to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach, considering both the liberty of the individual and the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:

“The High Court has placed reliance upon the report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC on 15 December 2020 to hold that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present when the incident occurred. However, the High Court has not addressed the clear deficiencies in the course of the investigation…”

“The Court has to determine whether on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered.”

“The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
• Courts must consider all material aspects of a case, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the specific allegations against the accused, and the deficiencies in the investigation.
• Appellate courts have a crucial role in reviewing the correctness of orders granting bail.
• Investigating agencies must conduct thorough and impartial investigations.
• Eyewitness accounts and the FIR are critical pieces of evidence that must be considered.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving anticipatory bail. It serves as a reminder that courts must carefully consider all aspects of a case before granting bail, especially in serious offenses. The decision also highlights the importance of a thorough and impartial investigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, thereby cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail by relying solely on the investigating officer’s report and overlooking the FIR, eyewitness statements, and the deficiencies in the investigation. This case reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense and the specific allegations against the accused. There was no specific change in the previous position of law, but the judgment re-emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation and a balanced approach when considering anticipatory bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders granting anticipatory bail to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of all material aspects of a case, including the seriousness of the offense and the specific allegations against the accused, before granting anticipatory bail. This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough investigation and the role of appellate courts in ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld.