Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (20 July 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 415

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

Can a High Court grant bail in a case involving a brutal murder without providing adequate reasoning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to three accused individuals charged with murder and other serious offenses. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized the necessity for High Courts to provide detailed reasoning when granting bail, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR lodged by Kumer Singh, the appellant, following the brutal murder of his brother, Sumer Singh, a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) who was on leave. The incident occurred on 16 August 2017, during the Goganavami fair in Choti Roru village. According to the FIR, a prior enmity existed between the parties. On the night of the incident, Sumer Singh and other family members were traveling in two cars when they were ambushed by the accused. The accused, armed with swords, knives, and other weapons, attacked Sumer Singh, resulting in his death. Another individual, Vikram Singh, also sustained serious injuries during the attack. A total of 26 injuries were found on Sumer Singh’s body and 11 injuries on Vikram Singh, caused by blunt and sharp weapons.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the bail applications of the accused were rejected by the Sessions Judge, considering the seriousness of the accusations. The High Court also rejected their bail applications on 10 January 2018, but allowed them to file fresh applications after the statements of material witnesses were recorded. The trial court framed charges against the accused on 9 February 2018. Despite the rejection of bail by the trial court on 30 April 2019, the High Court subsequently granted bail to Arif, Kamlesh, and Bhojraj Singh on 17 May 2019, 28 May 2019 and 1 June 2019 respectively. The original complainant, Kumer Singh, then filed appeals before the Supreme Court against these orders.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
✓ Section 147, IPC: Deals with the offense of rioting.
✓ Section 148, IPC: Addresses rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
✓ Section 341, IPC: Concerns wrongful restraint.
✓ Section 323, IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt.
✓ Section 307, IPC: Addresses the attempt to commit murder.
✓ Section 427, IPC: Deals with mischief causing damage.
✓ Section 302, IPC: Addresses the offense of murder.
✓ Section 149, IPC: Deals with the offense of unlawful assembly.
These sections of the IPC form the legal basis for the charges against the accused, who are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of Sumer Singh and caused injuries to Vikram Singh. The Supreme Court’s analysis of the High Court’s bail orders is based on the correct interpretation and application of these provisions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in granting bail without considering the brutality and seriousness of the crime.
• The murder of Sumer Singh was pre-planned, and the accused inflicted 26 injuries on him and 11 injuries on Vikram Singh.
• The High Court did not provide any reasons for granting bail, except noting the submissions of the accused and the public prosecutor.
• The accused were part of an unlawful assembly and actively participated in the crime.
• The High Court failed to consider that the accused are charged with offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
• The High Court did not consider the prior enmity between the parties, which established a motive for the murder.
• The High Court should have considered the principles laid down in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. [ (2020) 2 SCC 118 ], Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508], Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 16 SCC 190] and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) [2021 (6) SCALE 418].

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The High Court did not commit any error in granting bail, considering the circumstances of the case.
• The accused have been in custody for a considerable period (1 year and 6 months).
• The accused were armed with lathis, and there is no specific overt act attributed to them in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• There are 36 witnesses to be examined, which is likely to take a long time.
• The High Court considered the submissions of the accused and the public prosecutor and, therefore, applied its mind to the relevant circumstances.
• Other accused in the case have also been granted bail.
• The accused have not misused their liberty or violated any conditions of bail since their release.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering the seriousness of the offenses and the manner in which the crime was committed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Principles for Granting Bail:

• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598] – Supreme Court: Outlined the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail, emphasizing the nature of the offense and the severity of the punishment.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496] – Supreme Court: Stated that the High Court must exercise discretion judiciously and cautiously, considering factors like the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses.
• Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 525] – Supreme Court: Held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind.
• Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav [2021 SCC OnLine SC 286] – Supreme Court: Reiterated the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters.

On Appellate Review of Bail Orders:

• Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. [(2020) 2 SCC 118] – Supreme Court: Explained the distinction between assessing the correctness of an order granting bail and assessing an application for cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion.
• Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508] – Supreme Court: Clarified that an order granting bail can be set aside if relevant factors were not considered or if the bail was founded on irrelevant considerations.
• Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 11 SCC 648] – Supreme Court: Reaffirmed the principles for setting aside bail orders.

On Seriousness of Offense:

• Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 16 SCC 190] – Supreme Court: Emphasized that the nature of the offense is a basic consideration for granting bail.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) [2021 (6) SCALE 418] – Supreme Court: Highlighted the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the crime when granting bail.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code – Rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code – Rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 341, Indian Penal Code – Wrongful restraint.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code – Voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code – Attempt to murder.
• Section 427, Indian Penal Code – Mischief causing damage.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code – Murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code – Offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]: Cited to emphasize that the nature of the offense is a basic consideration for granting bail.

✓ Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]: Cited to highlight the need for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously and cautiously.

✓ Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 525]: Cited to highlight that a bail order without reasons is liable to be set aside.

✓ Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav [2021 SCC OnLine SC 286]: Cited to reiterate the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters.

✓ Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. [(2020) 2 SCC 118]: Cited to distinguish between assessing the correctness of a bail order and an application for cancellation of bail.

✓ Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]: Cited to clarify that a bail order can be set aside if relevant factors were not considered.

✓ Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 11 SCC 648]: Cited to reaffirm the principles for setting aside bail orders.

✓ Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 16 SCC 190]: Cited to emphasize that the nature of the offense is a basic consideration for granting bail.

✓ Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) [2021 (6) SCALE 418]: Cited to highlight the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the crime when granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

Seriousness of the Crime: The brutal nature of the murder, with 26 injuries on the deceased and 11 injuries on the injured, weighed heavily on the Court. The pre-planned nature of the attack and the use of sharp weapons indicated a grave offense that required careful consideration before granting bail.

Lack of Reasoning by the High Court: The High Court’s orders were considered non-speaking, as they did not provide any substantial reasons for granting bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judicial order must be reasoned to demonstrate that the court has applied its mind to the relevant factors.

Non-application of Mind: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not applied its mind to the relevant factors, such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the evidence on record. The High Court’s orders merely noted the submissions of the accused and the public prosecutor without any analysis.

Principles for Granting Bail: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in various precedents, such as Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr., Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), which emphasize the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings.

Distinction between Granting and Cancelling Bail: The Supreme Court highlighted the difference between assessing the correctness of a bail order and an application for cancellation of bail. The correctness of a bail order is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion, while cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions.

The court’s emphasis was more on the legal principles and the procedural lapses by the High Court rather than the factual aspects of the case. The court focused on the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order and the non-application of mind to the relevant legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the brutality of the murder, were considered, but the legal analysis and the procedural correctness were the primary focus of the court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the arguments made by the respondents that they were in custody for a long time, were armed with lathis, and had not misused their liberty. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the seriousness of the crime, the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order, and the non-application of mind to relevant factors outweighed these considerations. The Court’s final decision was based on the principle that bail orders must be reasoned and must demonstrate that the court has carefully considered all relevant factors, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

The decision was reached by considering the legal precedents, the facts of the case, and the procedural lapses by the High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind, warranting the interference of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

✓ The High Court’s orders were non-speaking and did not provide any reasons for granting bail.

✓ The High Court did not consider the seriousness of the crime, the nature of the allegations, and the role of the accused.

✓ The High Court did not apply its mind to the relevant factors while granting bail.

✓ The High Court’s order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind, warranting the interference of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.”

“The observations made by the High Court “considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application” does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order.”

“The impugned order passed by the High Court can be said to be perverse and suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant factors to be considered while grant of bail and therefore the interference of this Court is warranted.”

There was no minority opinion in this judgment. The bench unanimously agreed that the High Court’s order was not justified.

The Supreme Court’s analysis of the High Court’s order focused on the lack of reasoning and the failure to apply the relevant legal principles. The Court emphasized that bail orders must be reasoned and must demonstrate that the court has carefully considered all relevant factors. The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, as it reinforces the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters and highlights the need for High Courts to exercise their discretion judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. The judgment emphasizes the need for a careful balancing of public interest and individual liberty. The decision also serves as a reminder to lower courts to provide reasoned orders that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the facts and the relevant legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide detailed reasoning when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
• Bail orders must reflect a careful consideration of the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the evidence on record.
• The seriousness of the crime outweighs the custody period of the accused.
• The mere fact that the accused have not misused their liberty is not a sufficient ground to uphold a bail order that lacks reasoning.
• The Supreme Court will not hesitate to interfere with bail orders that are perverse, illegal, or unjustified.
• The principles laid
• The principles laid down in cases like Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr., Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) must be followed while granting bail.
• The individual role of the accused is not required to be considered at the stage of granting bail when the accused are charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.