Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on Parity: Girraj vs. Kiranpal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 123

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J

Can bail granted to multiple accused persons be automatically cancelled if the bail of the primary accused, on whose parity the others were granted bail, is cancelled by a higher court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the principle of parity in bail matters. This case involves a serious incident of violence resulting in the death of two individuals, where the High Court had granted bail to several accused based on an earlier order that was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

Case Background

The appellant, Girraj, filed a complaint after his two sons, Gajendra and Akash, were killed in an incident on 29 November 2019. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 30 November 2019, against eight accused persons, including the five respondents in this appeal: Kiranpal, Sundar, Rakesh, Satish, and Dharmendra. The FIR stated that there was enmity between the accused and the complainant’s family due to “party politics”.

The FIR also mentioned a prior incident on 24 October 2019, where some of the accused had attacked Akash, causing him serious injuries. On 29 November 2019, the incident occurred where Gajendra and Akash were ambushed and killed. The accused were allegedly armed with rifles, guns, and country-made pistols. Two other individuals, Sunil and Jeetu, were also injured in the attack.

Following the FIR, all the accused were arrested on 6 December 2019. A charge sheet was filed on 9 February 2020, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Arms Act against some of the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the accused persons. Initially, on 5 August 2020, the High Court granted bail to Narendra, a co-accused, citing that he had no criminal history and that it was difficult to determine who caused the injuries due to indiscriminate firing.

Subsequently, on 17 September 2020, Kiranpal was granted bail, and on 22 September 2020, Sundar, Rakesh, Satish, and Dharmendra were also granted bail. These subsequent bail orders were based on the principle of parity, relying on the earlier order granting bail to Narendra. The High Court explicitly noted that the co-accused with identical roles had already been released on bail.

However, the order granting bail to Narendra was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 11 December 2020, set aside the High Court’s order, canceling Narendra’s bail.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses the concept of common object in unlawful assembly, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object, every person who was a member of that assembly at the time of the commission of the offense is guilty of that offense.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for wrongful confinement.
• Section 508, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the offense of inducing a person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure.

Additionally, the case also involves Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, concerning the possession and use of illegal weapons.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that since the respondents were granted bail based on the principle of parity with Narendra, whose bail was subsequently canceled by the Supreme Court, the bail granted to the respondents should also be canceled.
• The appellant emphasized that the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the respondents was solely based on the order passed in the case of Narendra.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents attempted to distinguish their case by referring to the information provided by Kailash Hospital and Yatharth Hospital regarding the location of the incident, which they claimed was at variance with the FIR.
• They argued that the circumstances of their case were different from that of Narendra, and therefore, the cancellation of Narendra’s bail should not automatically lead to the cancellation of their bails.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the bail granted to the respondents, based on parity with co-accused Narendra, should be cancelled following the cancellation of Narendra’s bail by the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Panchanan Mishra v Digambar Mishra (2005) 3 SCC 143* to reinforce the legal principles guiding bail decisions.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had granted bail to the respondents solely on the basis of parity with Narendra. Since the Supreme Court had already cancelled Narendra’s bail, the foundation for the respondents’ bail no longer existed. The Court noted that while granting bail to Narendra, the High Court had made observations that were extraneous to the proper exercise of discretion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court stated, “The High Court has basically adverted to the following reasons: (i) The first respondent has no criminal history; (ii) Indiscriminate firing is stated to have been made by all the accused including the first respondent upon Jeetu and the two deceased and hence it cannot be determined who has caused the injuries; (iii) Taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, the case was found fit for grant of bail.”

The Court also noted that the High Court had ignored the fact that there were specific allegations against Narendra and that he was a member of an unlawful assembly, which attracts the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court stated, “A serious offence has taken place involving the death of two sons of the appellant. Though, the High Court has referred to the nature of the offence, it has failed to notice that the seriousness of the offence in the present case would militate against the grant of bail…”

The Court rejected the respondents’ arguments regarding the discrepancies between the hospital information and the FIR, stating that these were not relevant at this stage. The Court clarified that it was not making a finding on the merits of the case but was addressing the issue of parity in bail matters.

The Supreme Court, however, provided an opportunity for the respondents to apply for bail afresh in the High Court, conditional on their surrender.

The Court stated, “Nonetheless, in order to ensure fairness to the co-accused, who are the respondents in these proceedings, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to furnish them an opportunity to apply for bail before the High Court, conditional on their surrendering in pursuance of the order which we propose to pass cancelling their bail.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of parity and the fact that the High Court’s initial order granting bail to Narendra was set aside. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, the specific allegations against the accused, and the implications of being part of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Bail granted on the principle of parity is contingent on the validity of the initial bail order. If the initial bail is cancelled, the subsequent bails are also liable to be cancelled.
• High Courts should exercise discretion judiciously while granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses.
• The seriousness of the offense, specific allegations against the accused, and the implications of being part of an unlawful assembly should be considered while granting bail.
• Accused persons who have been granted bail on parity have the right to apply for bail afresh if the initial bail order is cancelled.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the five respondent-accused (Kiranpal, Sundar, Rakesh, Satish, and Dharmendra) were cancelled.
2. The respondent-accused were directed to surrender forthwith.
3. The respondent-accused were granted liberty to move the High Court afresh for the grant of bail, conditional on their surrendering within 24 hours of the order being uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that bail granted on parity is not absolute and is subject to the validity of the initial bail order. It clarifies that if the initial bail is cancelled, the subsequent bails granted on parity are also liable to be cancelled. This case highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors while granting bail and ensures that the principle of parity is not misused to circumvent the law.

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail granted on the principle of parity is contingent on the validity of the initial bail order. If the initial bail is cancelled, the subsequent bails granted on parity are also liable to be cancelled.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Girraj vs. Kiranpal and Anr Etc. reinforces the principle that bail granted on parity is not absolute and is contingent on the validity of the initial bail order. The Court cancelled the bail of the respondents, who were granted bail based on the parity with a co-accused whose bail was later cancelled. The Court, however, provided an opportunity for the respondents to apply for bail afresh, conditional on their surrender. This judgment serves as a reminder that bail decisions must be made judiciously, considering all relevant factors, and that the principle of parity cannot be used to circumvent the law.