Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Aminuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 143

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

Can an accused in a brutal murder case be granted bail simply based on the “larger mandate of Article 21” of the Constitution, without considering the gravity of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had granted bail to an accused, overlooking the seriousness of the offense. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that while personal liberty is paramount, it must be balanced with the public interest in ensuring that those accused of heinous crimes are held accountable. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

On July 10, 2019, at approximately 5:15 PM, the appellant’s son was attacked by seven individuals with knives while he was on his way to milk cattle. The attack resulted in fatal injuries, and the son died on the spot. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the same day at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, U.P., based on the appellant’s complaint. A postmortem examination conducted on July 11, 2019, revealed eight ante-mortem injuries. Following the arrest of one accused, Imran, on July 11, 2019, the Investigating Officer attempted to apprehend the remaining accused, who were absconding. A non-bailable warrant was issued on July 30, 2019, and a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was issued on August 2, 2019. The second respondent surrendered on August 29, 2019. The Sessions Judge, Kasganj, rejected the second respondent’s bail application on October 31, 2019, citing the seriousness of the crime and the direct charge of murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge, Kasganj, rejected the bail application of the second respondent on October 31, 2019, noting the serious nature of the crime and the direct accusation of murder. However, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No 6083 of 2020, granted bail to the second respondent on February 25, 2020. The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the “larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” without providing further reasons or addressing the seriousness of the offense. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The High Court had cited the “larger mandate of Article 21” as the basis for granting bail. The Supreme Court also considered Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which deals with the submission of a charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The court also referred to Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which deals with the issuance of a proclamation for a person absconding.

Article 21 of the Constitution states: “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 deals with “Report of police officer on completion of investigation.”

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 deals with “Proclamation for person absconding.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, represented by Mr. Anilendra Pandey, argued that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was solely based on Article 21, ignoring the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the injuries, and the prima facie involvement of the accused.
• The appellant emphasized that the accused were residents of the same locality and were named in the FIR, indicating their direct involvement in the brutal murder of the appellant’s son.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Submissions:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, supported the appellant’s contention and argued that the High Court had failed to consider the relevant factors while granting bail.
• The State also relied on the judgment in Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118], to highlight the need for reasoned orders while granting bail.

Second Respondent’s Submissions:

• The second respondent sought an adjournment, but the court denied it due to the seriousness of the case and the sufficient time already granted. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the second respondent solely based on the “larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” without considering the seriousness of the offense and other relevant factors.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118] – Supreme Court of India. The Court emphasized the need for reasoned orders while granting bail, stating that merely recording “having perused the record” is insufficient.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Proclamation for person absconding.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the second respondent. The Court directed the second respondent to surrender forthwith.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118]* to emphasize the need for reasoned orders while granting bail. The Court stated that the High Court’s order failed to meet this requirement.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the injuries, and the prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court emphasized that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 must be balanced with the public interest in the administration of the criminal justice system.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance individual liberty with the public interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are held accountable. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order failed to consider the gravity of the offense and other relevant factors. The Court was also concerned that the High Court did not provide a reasoned order, which is essential for transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s interpretation of Article 21 as too broad, emphasizing that while personal liberty is important, it cannot be the sole factor in granting bail, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The Court also considered the need for reasoned orders, as highlighted in Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118]. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation and emphasized that the seriousness of the offense and the public interest must also be considered.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that judicial orders must be reasoned and must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the public. The Court found that the High Court had failed to do so, and therefore, the order was unsustainable.

The court quoted from Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118], “Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed.”

The court also stated, “In the present case, the High Court has merely observed that bail was being granted after considering the submissions and having regard to the “larger mandate of Article 21”. There can be no manner of doubt that the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 is a constitutional value which has to be respected by the High Court, as indeed by all courts.”

The court further added, “Equally, in a matter such as the present, where a serious offence of murder has taken place, the liberty of the accused has to be necessarily balanced with the public interest in the administration of criminal justice system which requires that a person who is accused of a crime is held to account.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment clarifies that while Article 21 of the Constitution is crucial, it cannot be the sole basis for granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.
• High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, explaining the factors considered and the rationale behind the decision.
• The judgment emphasizes the need to balance individual liberty with the public interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are held accountable.
• This case underscores the importance of considering the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the injuries, and the prima facie involvement of the accused when deciding on bail applications.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the second respondent shall surrender forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, it cannot be the sole basis for granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases. The court must also consider the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the injuries, the prima facie involvement of the accused, and the public interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are held accountable. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial orders must be reasoned and must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the public. There is no change in the previous position of law but it clarifies the manner in which Article 21 is to be interpreted while granting bail.

Conclusion

In the case of Aminuddin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the second respondent, emphasizing that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the offense and the need for reasoned orders. The Supreme Court clarified that while Article 21 of the Constitution is important, it must be balanced with the public interest in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are held accountable. The judgment underscores the importance of a balanced approach in granting bail, considering all relevant factors, and providing reasoned justifications for judicial decisions.