Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Brutal Murder Case: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 999

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a High Court grant bail in a heinous murder case without considering the seriousness of the crime and the potential threat to witnesses? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to an accused charged with murder, despite the gravity of the allegations and the risk to the complainant’s family. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, emphasizing the need for a thorough evaluation of the facts and circumstances before granting bail in serious criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Prashant, who was allegedly killed by the accused, Respondent No. 2, along with other individuals. On the intervening night of September 7th and 8th, 2016, the accused allegedly visited the complainant’s house around 2 a.m., called out Prashant, and took him away on a motorcycle under the pretext of an urgent matter. The prosecution alleges that the accused severely beat Prashant, ran a tractor over him, and left him on a cot. The incident occurred in the presence of eyewitnesses. The motive behind the murder was allegedly linked to previous financial transactions between the accused and the deceased.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on September 8, 2016, at 7:30 a.m. based on the complaint filed by the appellant, Manoj Kumar, the brother of the deceased. The accused were charged under Section 302 (punishment for murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, with eight ante-mortem injuries found on the deceased’s body.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial bail application of Respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, noting the seriousness of the offense and the presence of eight ante-mortem injuries on the deceased’s body. Subsequently, the accused approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which granted him bail. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking cancellation of the bail.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Additionally, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is also relevant, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The case also touches upon the principles governing the grant of bail, which require a consideration of the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the evidence, the potential for the accused to influence witnesses, and the risk of the accused absconding.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court granted bail without considering the seriousness of the offense and the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case.
• The accused brutally killed the deceased and inhumanly ran a tractor over him in the presence of eyewitnesses.
• Since the accused was released on bail, the complainant’s family has been threatened with dire consequences if they depose against the accused.
• The trial is at the evidence stage, and there is a high probability that the accused will tamper with the prosecution’s case by threatening the eyewitnesses.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supported the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused.

State’s Arguments:

• The State believed that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the accused.
• The State admitted that it had failed to file a petition seeking cancellation of bail and had been negligent in contesting the matter.
• The State acknowledged that another case had been registered against the accused for threatening the complainant, indicating a likelihood of influencing the witnesses if the accused remained on bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in the given circumstances. This main issue can be broken down into the following:

1. Whether the High Court considered the seriousness of the offense while granting bail?
2. Whether the High Court properly assessed the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case?
3. Whether the High Court took into account the potential threat to the complainant and his family?
4. Whether the High Court considered the likelihood of the accused tampering with the witnesses?

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. The reasoning was based on the facts of the case, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential for the accused to influence the witnesses. The court also considered the negligence of the State in not contesting the bail application effectively.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to underscore the gravity of the offense of murder.
• The Court considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to highlight the common intention of the accused in committing the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Seriousness of the Offense: The court emphasized the brutal nature of the murder, where the accused allegedly beat the deceased and ran a tractor over him in the presence of eyewitnesses.
• Evidentiary Value: The court noted that the High Court had failed to consider the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case, including the eyewitness accounts and the postmortem report.
• Threat to Witnesses: The court highlighted the fact that the complainant’s family was being threatened after the accused was released on bail, and that there was a likelihood of the accused influencing the eyewitnesses.
• State’s Negligence: The court expressed its displeasure at the State’s negligence in not contesting the bail application effectively and for not taking effective steps to protect the victims.

The court’s reasoning was based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the crime, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the threats to the complainant’s family, as well as the legal principles governing the grant of bail.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court might have found some mitigating circumstances to grant bail. However, the Court rejected this interpretation because the High Court’s order was found to be casual and without proper reasoning. The Court concluded that the High Court had not properly considered the seriousness of the offense, the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case, and the potential threat to witnesses.

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

• The High Court’s order was passed in a casual way without assigning any valid and proper reason.
• The High Court ignored the evidentiary value of the prosecution case.
• The High Court failed to consider the threat to the complainant and his family.
• The High Court did not take into account the likelihood of the accused influencing the eyewitnesses.
• The State itself admitted that the High Court was not justified in granting bail.
• The State’s negligence in contesting the matter was a serious concern.

The Supreme Court stated, “The High Court, unfortunately, passed the impugned order in a casual way granting bail to the accused – respondent No.2 without assigning any valid and proper reason.”

The Court also observed, “From the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is evident that subsequent to the instant crime, another Case Crime No. 512 of 2017, dated 30.09.2017 has also been registered in police station Dibiyapur against the accused—respondent No. 2, under Section 506, IPC for threatening the complainant—appellant putting pressure on him to withdraw the instant case.”

The Court further added, “Taking note of that and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary and therefore cancel the bail granted by the High Court to the accused – respondent No.2.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case, the potential threat to witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence before granting bail.
• Bail should not be granted in a casual manner, especially in heinous crimes like murder.
• The State has a responsibility to protect victims and contest cases against accused persons effectively.
• The State’s negligence in not contesting bail applications can result in the cancellation of bail by higher courts.
• Threatening witnesses is a serious offense that can influence the outcome of a case.

This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach to granting bail, particularly in serious criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that the courts must balance the liberty of the accused with the need to ensure justice and protect the integrity of the judicial process. The judgment also highlights the crucial role of the State in protecting victims and contesting cases effectively.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The accused was given the liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court after some time. The court also directed the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh, to file affidavits within four weeks, indicating the steps they would take to avoid the recurrence of such negligence by the State.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail granted by a High Court can be cancelled by the Supreme Court if the High Court has not considered the seriousness of the offense, the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case, the potential threat to witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. This case does not introduce a new position of law but reinforces the existing principles governing the grant and cancellation of bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) underscores the importance of a meticulous and reasoned approach to bail decisions, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The court’s cancellation of bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad highlights the need for a comprehensive evaluation of facts, circumstances, and potential threats to witnesses before granting bail. This judgment serves as a critical reminder for lower courts to exercise caution and diligence in such matters, and for the State to fulfill its responsibility in protecting victims and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process.