Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Contract Killing Case: Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 349
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Can a High Court grant bail to accused persons with a history of criminal activity without considering the gravity of the offense and the potential for witness tampering? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, highlighting the importance of a balanced approach to bail decisions. This case revolves around the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench to two individuals accused in a contract killing case. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that while personal liberty is paramount, it cannot be at the expense of a fair trial and the safety of witnesses. The judgment was authored by Justice Surya Kant, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala concurring.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad, who was killed in broad daylight in front of a bank. The appellant, Ansar Ahmad, who is the father of the deceased, filed a First Information Report (FIR) stating that his son was attacked by a group of individuals, including Vanshraj Yadav, who threw a grenade at Ashfaque. Following the grenade attack, other accused persons started firing indiscriminately, resulting in Ashfaque’s death on the spot and injuries to Razi Ahmad. Two of the accused were apprehended at the scene by the public. One of them identified himself as Amit Chaubey, while the other did not disclose his name.

During interrogation, Amit Chaubey revealed that the respondents, Rajesh Vikram Singh and his brother, had hired them to kill Ashfaque Ahmad. The FIR also mentioned the recovery of ₹2,47,700 in cash from the apprehended individuals, suggesting a contract killing. The motive for the murder was that Ashfaque Ahmad’s father-in-law was a witness in another criminal case against Rajesh Vikram Singh, in which he was eventually convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The investigation revealed that Subhash Yadav was allegedly present at the scene of the crime, while Rajesh Vikram Singh was part of the conspiracy to eliminate Ashfaque Ahmad.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh despite their extensive criminal records. Subhash Yadav had 14 criminal cases against him, including a prior conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Rajesh Vikram Singh had 26 criminal cases, with a prior conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was suspended on appeal.

The High Court, while granting bail, briefly narrated the prosecution case and concluded that the applicants were entitled to bail without providing detailed reasoning. This decision was made despite the fact that another accused, Satish Kumar @ Satai, had his bail rejected by the same High Court just a few days prior, citing the seriousness of the charges and his criminal history.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deal with the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail, respectively. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing the cancellation of bail, as established in previous judgments.

The Court emphasized that while granting bail, a court must consider several factors, including:

• The nature and gravity of the accusation.
• The severity of the punishment.
• The status of the accused and their potential to influence witnesses.
• The likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.
• The possibility of the accused repeating the offense.

The Court also referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, highlighting the need to balance individual rights with the interests of justice.

Arguments

The appellant, Ansar Ahmad, argued that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the respondents, and the potential for witness tampering. He contended that the respondents were a flight risk and could influence the remaining witnesses.

The respondents, Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh, argued that the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail. They contended that there were no supervening circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail and that the court should not interfere with the High Court’s decision.

The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s plea, arguing that the High Court had overlooked crucial factors while granting bail to the respondents.

Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents, submitted that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage.

Mr. Basant further submitted that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail. Bail once granted should only be cancelled if it comes to the notice of the Court that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him by the Court. According to Mr. Basant, there are no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail granted by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondents, considering their criminal history and the gravity of the offense.

The court also dealt with the sub-issue of whether the cancellation of bail is limited to the occurrence of any supervening circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with the grant of regular bail.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh. The Court directed both respondents to surrender before the Trial Court immediately.

The Court clarified that while granting bail, the High Court should have considered the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the accused, and the potential for witness tampering. The Court emphasized that the concession of bail should not be misused to the prejudice of the prosecution or the victim.

The Court also held that the cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances. The soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused.

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Ash Mohammad vs. Shivraj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 446*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that there is no strict rule for cancellation of bail and that it is not limited to the likelihood of abuse of bail.
• Puran v. Rambilas and another, 2001 (6) SCC 338*: The Court used this case to highlight the difference between setting aside an illegal order and cancelling bail due to misconduct or supervening circumstances.
• Venkatesan Balsubramaniyan vs. The Intelligence Officer, DRI Bangalore (Cr. Appeal No. 801 of 2020), (2020) 13 Scale 191*: The Court cited this case to reiterate that a default bail illegally or erroneously granted under Section 167(2) CrPC can be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The serious nature of the crime: The murder was a contract killing, indicating a premeditated and heinous act.
• The criminal history of the respondents: Both respondents had a history of criminal activity, including prior convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The potential for witness tampering: The court noted that key witnesses were yet to depose and that the respondents could influence them.
• The misuse of bail: The respondents were allegedly involved in the current crime while on bail in a previous case, indicating a misuse of the concession of bail.
• The need to protect the integrity of the judicial process: The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair trial and protecting the interests of the prosecution and the victim.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning for setting aside the High Court’s order can be illustrated as follows:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that bail should not be cancelled unless there is a misuse of the liberty granted or any supervening circumstances. The Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused.

The decision was reached by considering the cumulative effect of the factors mentioned above. The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly assess the situation and had granted bail without due consideration of the relevant factors.

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

• The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense.
• The High Court overlooked the criminal history of the respondents.
• The High Court did not account for the potential for witness tampering.
• The respondents misused the liberty granted to them in an earlier case.
• The High Court’s order was inconsistent with its own previous order rejecting bail to another accused in the same case.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters.”

“We are of the view that in the case in hand, several important factors ought to have been kept in mind by the learned High Court while considering the prayer of the respondents for their enlargement on regular bail.”

“It is the solemn duty of the Court to ensure that while extending the protection of liberty to an accused within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution, the interest of the prosecution is equally protected and the concession of bail should not be allowed to be misused to the prejudice of the prosecution of the victim.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges on the bench concurred with the decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, the legal provisions, and the precedents. The Court emphasized that while personal liberty is important, it cannot be at the cost of a fair trial. The Court also clarified that the cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances and that the soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving bail. It reinforces the principle that courts must carefully consider all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses and accused persons with criminal records. It also clarifies that the cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances and that the soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused.

The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but clarified the existing law on bail and its cancellation. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach to bail decisions, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected while also safeguarding the interests of the prosecution and the victim.

Key Takeaways

• Courts must carefully consider the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the accused, and the potential for witness tampering while granting bail.
• Bail can be cancelled not only for supervening circumstances but also if the initial order granting bail is flawed or illegal.
• The concession of bail should not be misused to the prejudice of the prosecution or the victim.
• Courts must ensure a fair trial and protect the interests of the prosecution and the victim while also safeguarding the rights of the accused.
• The order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The respondents, Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh, were directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith.
• The respondents were granted liberty to apply for bail after the examination of all eye witnesses or other material witnesses.
• The Trial Court was directed to decide the case expeditiously and make an endeavor to conclude the trial within one year.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a bail order can be set aside if the High Court has not considered the relevant factors while granting bail, and that the cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of law and clarifies that the soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused. There is no change in the previous positions of law but a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ansar Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach to bail decisions. The Court’s cancellation of bail granted to the accused highlights the need for High Courts to carefully consider all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the accused, and the potential for witness tampering. This judgment reinforces the principle that the concession of bail should not be misused to the prejudice of the prosecution or the victim and that the soundness of the bail order itself can be challenged if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused.