Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 10, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 282

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B. V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to individuals accused of a brutal murder, especially when there is significant evidence against them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Gujarat had granted bail to the accused. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined whether the High Court had correctly assessed the gravity of the crime and the available evidence before granting bail. The bench comprised Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around the brutal murder of Mukeshbhai, the husband of the original complainant, Jayaben. On the day of the incident, Jayaben, her aunt Savitaben, and Mukeshbhai were collecting scrap outside a factory. They were confronted by five individuals (the accused), who began abusing and beating them. The accused then tied Mukeshbhai to the factory gate and continued to assault him. Jayaben and her aunt were forced to leave. When they returned with relatives and friends, they found Mukeshbhai unconscious and severely injured. He was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.

Following this, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Shapar (Veraval) Police Station as C.R. No. I/38 of 2018. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court in Gondal initially rejected the bail application of one of the accused, Tejas Kanubhai Zala, on 18.09.2018. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, through its judgment dated 04.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2018, granted bail to Tejas Kanubhai Zala. Following this, another accused, Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya, was also granted bail on 05.04.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2019, primarily on the ground that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that there was no further material against him except for his presence at the scene of the crime. The original complainant, Jayaben, then appealed to the Supreme Court against these orders.

Legal Framework

The accused were charged under the following legal provisions:

• Sections 302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with murder, wrongful confinement, assault, rioting, and unlawful assembly.
• Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: These sections relate to atrocities committed against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951: This section deals with violations of police regulations.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Jayaben):

• The High Court erred in granting bail, considering the brutal nature of the murder.
• The High Court failed to appreciate that the accused were chargesheeted for serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
• The High Court did not consider the gravity of the offenses and the manner in which the deceased was beaten, leading to his death.
• The complainant and her aunt were eyewitnesses to the crime.
• The entire incident was recorded on mobile and CCTV.
• The accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya was not merely standing by but actively participated by tying the deceased.
• All the accused were identified in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) by the eyewitnesses.
• The post-mortem report confirmed that the death was due to ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court should not have granted bail in such a serious case.
• The State admitted that it should have also filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• The accused Tejas Kanubhai Zala had been on bail since February 2019, and there were no allegations of misuse of liberty.
• The trial had progressed significantly, with most witnesses except the investigating officer having been examined.
• The accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya adopted the submissions of the co-accused and requested not to cancel bail after two and a half years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the accused on bail, considering the gravity of the offenses and the evidence available.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections pertain to murder, wrongful confinement, assault, rioting, and unlawful assembly.
• Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: These sections deal with atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951: This section relates to violations of police regulations.
• Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section pertains to the appointment of the Director of Prosecution.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offenses, the evidence collected, and the statements of the eyewitnesses. The Court directed the accused to surrender within one week, failing which non-bailable warrants would be issued against them.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the legal provisions under which the accused were charged to highlight the seriousness of the offenses. The Court did not use any authority to overrule or approve any previous judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the gravity of the offenses, the brutal nature of the murder, and the strong evidence against the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the statements of eyewitnesses, the post-mortem report, and the fact that the incident was recorded on CCTV and mobile phones. The Court also expressed concern over the High Court’s casual approach in granting bail without properly assessing the seriousness of the crime.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was not justified, given the seriousness of the crime, the evidence, and the eyewitness accounts. The Court highlighted the need for a thorough assessment of all facts and circumstances before granting bail in such cases.

The Court also noted that the State failed to file an appeal against the High Court’s order, which was a serious lapse in protecting the rights of the victim. The Court stressed the importance of the Director of Prosecution and the State in ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice.

“The High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge sheet.”

“The judgments and orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail are unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law.”

“Once, it is found that the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable, necessary consequences shall have to follow and the bail has to be cancelled.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized that in cases of serious offenses like murder, the High Court must consider the gravity of the crime, the evidence collected, and the statements of eyewitnesses before granting bail.
• The State has a crucial role in protecting the rights of victims and must promptly appeal against orders that release accused persons on bail in serious offenses.
• The Director of Prosecution must take prompt decisions to ensure that those who commit crimes are brought to justice.
• The cancellation of bail and setting aside a wrong order passed by the High Court stand on different footings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority within one week, failing which non-bailable warrants would be issued against them.

The Supreme Court also directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Principal Chief Secretary and Secretary, Home Department and Legal Department, State of Gujarat, to take further corrective steps.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must consider the gravity of the offenses, the evidence collected, and the statements of eyewitnesses before granting bail in serious offenses like murder. This case also clarifies that the cancellation of bail and setting aside a wrong order passed by the High Court stand on different footings. The Court has reiterated the importance of the State and the Director of Prosecution in ensuring that justice is served in criminal matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala is a significant judgment that underscores the importance of a thorough and careful assessment of evidence and the gravity of offenses before granting bail. The Court’s intervention highlights the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring that justice is served, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The judgment also serves as a reminder to the State and its legal officers to act promptly and diligently in protecting the rights of victims and maintaining the rule of law.