Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Gruesome Homicide Case: Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. State of Gujarat (20 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 207

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, M R Shah, J
Can a High Court grant bail without properly considering the gravity of the offense and the role of the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question while hearing appeals against the grant of bail to multiple accused in a gruesome case involving five homicides. The Court found that the High Court had overlooked key aspects of the case and had not provided adequate reasoning for granting bail, thereby setting aside the High Court’s orders. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with M R Shah, J concurring.

Case Background

The case stems from a violent incident on 9 May 2020, in Hamirpur village, Gujarat, where five people were killed. The primary informant, Ramesh Bhavan Rathod, stated that he, his brother Pethabhai, and his brother-in-law Akhabhai were traveling in a Scorpio vehicle with five others when they were ambushed. The vehicle was blocked by tractors, and the occupants were attacked with weapons, leading to the deaths of Akhabhai, Pethabhai, and three others. The incident was rooted in a land dispute.

A cross-FIR was filed by Vishan Heera Makwana (Koli), one of the accused, on 13 May 2020, claiming that the victims were the aggressors, and that he and his group were attacked first. Vishan stated that he intended to assault Akhabhai due to an ongoing land dispute.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Gujarat granted bail to six accused individuals: Vishan Heera Koli (A-6), Pravin Heera Koli (A-10), Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13), Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15), Vanraj Karshan Koli (A-16), and Dinesh Karshan Akhiyani (Koli) (A-17). The High Court’s initial order granting bail to Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) on 22 October 2020, was based on the grounds that the informant’s subsequent statement on 3 June 2020, lacked the overt acts attributed in the original FIR. Subsequent bail orders for the other accused were primarily based on parity with this initial order. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide adequate reasons for granting bail and failed to consider the gravity of the offenses.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of law:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC: Pertain to unlawful assembly and rioting.
• Section 341 of the IPC: Deals with wrongful restraint.
• Section 384 of the IPC: Concerns extortion.
• Section 120B of the IPC: Addresses criminal conspiracy.
• Section 506(2) of the IPC: Deals with criminal intimidation.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Sections 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 of the Arms Act: Relate to illegal possession and use of firearms.
• Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act: Pertains to violations of police regulations.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides for the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant (Informant):

• The High Court erred in granting bail based on a perceived discrepancy between the FIR and a subsequent statement by the informant.
• The cross-FIR lodged by the accused confirms their presence and premeditation.
• The focus should be on the accused’s presence, premeditation, assault, and resultant homicides, not the specific weapons used.
• The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime.
• The main accused, Vishan (A-6), was granted bail without any reasons.
• The High Court’s observation that the bail order should not be treated as a precedent for parity was inappropriate.

State of Gujarat:

• The accused persons had a pre-meditated plan to assault the victims.
• The incident occurred when the victims were returning home and were ambushed.
• The accused were armed with deadly weapons.
• The main accused, Vishan (A-6), and Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) have criminal antecedents.
• The Sessions Judge noted that A-6 had attempted to obtain bail using false documents.

Accused:

• The FIR implicates 22 people, and some of the accused are women who were granted bail.
• There was a free fight, and the accused also sustained injuries.
• The informant’s subsequent statement altered the genesis of the incident.
• The post-mortem reports do not align with the allegation of gunshot injuries.
• The accused’s presence at the scene is confirmed by the cross-FIR.
• The Sessions Judge denied bail based only on the accused’s presence, not on the merits of the case.
• The High Court’s order granting bail to A-6 lacked reasons.

Additional Arguments by Accused:

• The case involves ‘over implication’ of many people.
• Some of the accused had no blood marks on their clothes or weapons.
• The complainant’s side was the initial aggressor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section of the judgment. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was whether the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused, considering the nature and gravity of the offenses and the evidence available. The sub-issues that the court dealt with were:

• Whether the High Court properly considered the gravity of the offenses.
• Whether the High Court correctly applied the principle of parity.
• Whether the High Court provided adequate reasons for granting bail.
• Whether the High Court overlooked material aspects of the case, including the cross-FIR.

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:

Judgment

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

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision to overturn the High Court’s bail orders. The Court emphasized that while granting bail, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the role of the accused. The Court also highlighted that the principle of parity cannot be applied simplistically and that the High Court must provide adequate reasons for granting bail.

The Supreme Court, while considering the authorities, noted that the High Court had failed to apply the principles laid down in these cases. Specifically, the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offense, the role of each accused, and the implications of the cross-FIR. The Court also disapproved of the practice of the High Court recording that the counsels did not press for a further reasoned order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders were perverse and suffered from a non-application of mind.

• Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012 (1) SCC 40]: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that while it laid down principles for granting bail, the High Court had not applied those principles correctly. The Court emphasized that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial, not punitive or preventative. The Court also noted that the seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant considerations, but not the only test.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudharshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that the nature of the crime is a basic consideration in granting bail, and the order for bail must have cogent reasons.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]: The Supreme Court followed this case, highlighting factors to consider while granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, and danger of witnesses being influenced.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.
• Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446]: The Supreme Court followed this case, noting that criminal antecedents of the accused must be weighed for the purpose of granting bail.
• Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [(2004) 7 SCC 525]: The Supreme Court followed this case, holding 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 v. Sonu Yadav [Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2021, decided on 5 April 2021]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that the High Court cannot be oblivious to the seriousness of the alleged offense, and the reasons in the order granting bail must be of a certain quality.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia [(2020) 2 SCC 118]: The Supreme Court followed this case, stating that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail.
• Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. [(2020) 11 SCC 648]: The Supreme Court followed this case, reiterating the standards for setting aside bail orders, emphasizing non-application of mind or ignoring relevant factors.
• The State of Kerala v. Mahesh [Criminal Appeal No 343 of 2021]: The Supreme Court followed this case, stating that all relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence, and the possibility of the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors, including the gravity of the offenses, the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s orders, and the failure to consider the cross-FIR. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overlooked crucial aspects of the case, including the premeditated nature of the assault and the criminal antecedents of some of the accused.

The Court was particularly critical of the High Court’s reliance on the perceived discrepancy between the FIR and the subsequent statement, noting that the cross-FIR provided a clear account of the accused’s involvement. The Court also disapproved of the High Court’s practice of recording that the counsels did not press for a further reasoned order, stating that this practice was an anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

The ratio of Fact:Law indicates that the Court considered both factual aspects of the case (40%) and legal considerations (60%), with a slightly greater emphasis on legal principles and precedents. The primary focus was on the High Court’s failure to apply the correct legal standards while granting bail.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order based on relevant factors. The Court noted that the High Court had not applied a judicial mind to the facts of the case and had failed to consider the gravity of the offenses. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion that must be exercised judiciously and with proper reasoning.

The majority opinion, authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with M R Shah, J concurring, emphasized the need for High Courts to apply judicial minds while granting bail, and to provide reasons for the same. The Court also emphasized the importance of considering the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the material evidence available. There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must consider the gravity of the offense when deciding on bail applications.
• The principle of parity should not be applied simplistically; the role of each accused must be considered.
• Bail orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and the practice of stating that counsels do not press for further reasoned orders is disapproved.
• Courts must consider all material evidence, including cross-FIRs, when deciding on bail.
• Criminal antecedents of the accused are relevant factors while considering bail.
• Failure to apply a judicial mind and consider relevant factors can lead to the overturning of bail orders.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed all the accused to surrender forthwith. The copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Sessions Judge to secure compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously while granting bail, considering the gravity of the offense, the role of each accused, and all material evidence, including cross-FIRs. The Court also emphasized that bail orders must be supported by adequate reasoning. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on granting bail and highlights the need for courts to apply a judicial mind to the facts of each case.

There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the manner in which the existing law should be applied. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a thorough and reasoned approach in granting bail, particularly in serious criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr. is a significant judgment that clarifies the principles to be followed by High Courts while granting bail. The Court emphasized that bail orders must be based on a careful consideration of the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and all material evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder that the grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion that must be exercised judiciously and with proper reasoning. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, directing the accused to surrender immediately, thereby upholding the principles of justice and due process.