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 25

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., 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 accounts and video footage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the need to consider the gravity of the offense and the evidence before granting bail. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the brutal murder of Mukeshbhai, who was attacked while collecting scrap with his wife, Jayaben (the appellant), and her aunt. The incident occurred outside a factory, where five individuals, including the respondents, allegedly assaulted Mukeshbhai. The prosecution’s case is that the accused initially abused and beat all three of them. Subsequently, Mukeshbhai was tied to the factory gate and severely beaten while Jayaben and her aunt were asked to leave. Upon their return, they found Mukeshbhai unconscious and seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed at Police Station, Shapar (Veraval), leading to charges against the accused 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, Gondal, initially rejected the bail application of respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the High Court of Gujarat, through separate judgments, granted bail to both respondents. The High Court released Tejas Kanubhai Zala on bail on 04.02.2019. Later, on 05.04.2019, the High Court granted bail to Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya, primarily because the co-accused had already been granted bail and noting that there was no further material against him except for his presence at the scene of the incident. 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 (Punishment for murder), 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 143 (Punishment for unlawful assembly), 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

These provisions deal with various offences, including murder, wrongful confinement, assault, rioting, and offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The charges indicate the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the legal framework under which the accused were being prosecuted.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Jayaben):

• The High Court erred in granting bail, considering the brutal nature of the murder.
• The accused were chargesheeted for serious offences 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 appreciate the gravity of the offences, especially the manner in which the deceased was beaten and succumbed to multiple injuries.
• The complainant and her aunt are eyewitnesses to the incident.
• The entire incident was recorded on mobile and CCTV.
• The deceased was tied to the gate and beaten, as shown in the charge sheet and photographs.
• Accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya was not just standing; he actively participated in the assault and tied the deceased.
• All accused were identified in the Test Identification Parade (TIP).
• 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 disregarded the statements of the eyewitnesses at this stage.

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 acknowledged its failure to file an appeal against the High Court’s decision, which it conceded was an oversight.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• Accused Tejas Kanubhai Zala argued that he has been on bail since February 2019 without any allegations of misuse of liberty.
• The trial has progressed significantly, with most witnesses, except the investigating officer, already examined.
• Accused Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya adopted the submissions of the co-accused and requested not to cancel bail after two and a half years.

Submissions Table

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 granting bail to the accused in a case involving a brutal murder, given the evidence presented and the seriousness of the charges.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the factual matrix of the case and the errors committed by the High Court in granting bail.

Authorities Table

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 during the investigation, and the statements of the eyewitnesses. The Court noted that the entire incident was recorded on CCTV and mobile phones, further strengthening the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender to the concerned jail authority within one week, failing which non-bailable warrants would be issued against them.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The brutality of the murder and the seriousness of the offenses.
• The presence of eyewitnesses, including the complainant and her aunt.
• The existence of CCTV footage and mobile recordings of the incident.
• The post-mortem report confirming the cause of death as injuries from a blunt object.
• The High Court’s failure to consider these factors while granting bail.

The Court emphasized that the High Court had not adequately considered the gravity of the offenses and the evidence collected during the investigation, which formed part of the charge sheet. The Court also noted that the High Court had released the accused in a perfunctory and casual manner.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts must consider the gravity of offenses and the strength of evidence while granting bail, especially in serious cases like murder.
• Eyewitness testimony and video evidence are crucial in assessing the merits of a case.
• The State has a responsibility to protect the rights of victims and ensure that those accused of serious crimes are brought to justice.
• The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the role of the Director of Prosecution in ensuring prompt decisions in criminal matters.

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. Failure to do so 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 exercise caution and diligence while granting bail in serious criminal cases, particularly those involving murder. The court reiterated that the gravity of the offense, strength of evidence, and the presence of eyewitnesses are critical factors that must be considered. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail cannot be granted in a casual and perfunctory manner, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jayaben vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr. underscores the importance of a thorough and judicious approach to granting bail in serious criminal cases. The Court’s emphasis on considering the gravity of the offense, the available evidence, and the statements of eyewitnesses serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution and diligence in such matters. The judgment also highlights the crucial role of the State and the Director of Prosecution in ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are brought to justice and that the rights of victims are protected.