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

Date of the Judgment: 10 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 24
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court grant bail to accused persons in a heinous murder case when there is strong evidence against them, including eyewitness testimony and video footage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, setting aside the High Court’s decision to grant bail. This case highlights the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the strength of evidence when deciding on bail applications, especially in cases involving serious crimes. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

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. Upon their return with relatives and friends, they found Mukeshbhai unconscious and severely injured. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

A First Information Report (FIR) was filed 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. The charges included murder, wrongful confinement, assault, and offenses related to atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Sessions Court, Gondal, initially rejected the bail application of one of the accused, Tejas Kanubhai Zala.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court initially rejected the bail application of Tejas Kanubhai Zala. Subsequently, the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2018, released Tejas Kanubhai Zala on bail on 04.02.2019. The High Court, in another Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2019, released another accused, Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya, on bail on 05.04.2019, primarily considering that the co-accused was already on 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 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 offenses and atrocities committed against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951: This section relates to offenses under the Gujarat Police Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Jayaben):

• The High Court erred in granting bail, failing to appreciate the gravity of the offense where the complainant’s husband was brutally murdered.
• The accused were chargesheeted for serious offenses, including murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• The High Court did not consider the fact that the complainant and her aunt were eyewitnesses.
• The entire incident was recorded on mobile and CCTV, providing strong evidence against the accused.
• The deceased was tied to the gate and beaten, as evidenced by photographs.
• Accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya was not merely standing by; he actively participated by tying the deceased and beating him.
• 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.
• The High Court should not have dismissed the statements of the eyewitnesses at this stage.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, asserting that the High Court should not have granted bail in such a serious case.
• The State acknowledged its failure to file an appeal against the High Court’s bail orders, admitting that it should have done so.

Accused’s Arguments (Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya):

• Tejas Kanubhai Zala argued that he had been on bail since February 2019, and there were no allegations of misuse of liberty, so the bail should not be cancelled.
• The trial had progressed, with most witnesses, except the investigating officer, already examined.
• Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya adopted the arguments of Tejas Kanubhai Zala, requesting that his bail also not be cancelled.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the accused on bail, given the severity of the charges, the evidence against them, and the eyewitness testimonies.

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 explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. 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 offenses and atrocities committed against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951: This section relates to offenses under the Gujarat Police Act.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the charges under Sections 302, 342, 354, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to underscore the gravity of the offenses, including murder, wrongful confinement, assault, rioting, and unlawful assembly.
• The Court acknowledged the charges under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989*, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses related to atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The Court noted the charges under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951*, highlighting the legal framework within which the accused were being prosecuted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the severity of the crime and the strength of the evidence against the accused. The Court emphasized the brutal nature of the murder, the eyewitness testimonies, and the video evidence. The Court expressed concern over the High Court’s perfunctory approach and its failure to consider the gravity of the offenses. Additionally, the Court was critical of the State’s failure to file an appeal against the High Court’s bail orders.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects, such as the brutality of the murder, eyewitness testimonies, and video evidence, accounted for 60% of the Court’s reasoning. The legal considerations, including the charges under various statutes and the procedural aspects of bail, contributed to the remaining 40%.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the factual evidence, legal charges, and the High Court’s approach to conclude that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was flawed. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the strength of evidence when deciding on bail applications.

The Court rejected the argument that the accused had been on bail for a long time without misuse of liberty, stating that this was not a valid reason to uphold an otherwise incorrect bail order. The Court emphasized that the cancellation of bail and setting aside a wrong order are different legal concepts and that once an order is found to be unsustainable, it must be set aside, regardless of the time elapsed.

The Supreme Court stated, “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.”

The Court also noted, “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.”

Further, the Court observed, “in such a serious matter and looking to the gravity of the offences and considering the statements of eye witnesses and that the entire incident has been recorded in the CCTV footages and the mobile phone, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the respective respondents No.1 – accused on bail.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused.
• The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offense and the strength of evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and video footage, must be considered when deciding on bail applications.
• The Court criticized the High Court for its perfunctory approach and failure to consider the seriousness of the charges.
• The Court also criticized the State for not filing an appeal against the High Court’s bail orders.
• The accused were directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority within one week.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused, Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya, to surrender before the concerned jail authority within one week from the date of the judgment (January 10, 2022). Failure to comply would result in the issuance of non-bailable warrants against them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must thoroughly consider the gravity of the offense and the strength of the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and video footage, before granting bail in serious criminal cases. The Supreme Court clarified that the cancellation of bail and setting aside a wrong order are distinct legal concepts. This judgment reinforces the principle that an unsustainable bail order must be set aside regardless of the time elapsed since the accused was released on bail. This case serves as a reminder to lower courts to not take a perfunctory approach when granting bail and to give due weightage to the seriousness of the crime and the evidence presented.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr. is a significant ruling that underscores the importance of a thorough and careful approach when considering bail applications, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like murder. The Court’s decision to cancel the bail granted by the High Court highlights the need for lower courts to give due consideration to the gravity of the offense, the strength of evidence, and the potential impact on the justice system. The judgment also serves as a reminder to the State to promptly act in criminal matters to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of victims.