Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Gruesome Murder Case: Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 123

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J

Can a High Court grant bail in a gruesome murder case without properly considering the evidence and seriousness of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, setting aside a High Court order that had granted bail to the accused in a murder case. This judgment underscores the importance of a reasoned approach to bail decisions, balancing individual liberty with the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, delivered a unanimous judgment. The court emphasized that while granting bail is a discretionary power, it must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Akhilesh, who was assaulted on December 2, 2018. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the appellant, Mahipal, Akhilesh was attacked by multiple individuals, including the respondents, after an initial altercation. The FIR stated that Akhilesh and his friend Aashish were on a motorcycle when they were confronted by two accused persons, Vijay and Anil, who hurled abuses at Akhilesh. Following this, five to six boys armed with dandas assaulted Akhilesh. Though rescued by villagers, Akhilesh was later confronted by the accused – Anil, Ajay, Rajesh (the first respondent), Vikas and Vijay – who used rods to beat him with an intention to kill him. The accused fled the scene, and Akhilesh was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead.

The post-mortem report revealed twenty-seven ante-mortem injuries on Akhilesh’s body, with seven of these injuries on his head. The medical board concluded that the cause of death was coma resulting from the head injuries. The first respondent, Rajesh Kumar, was arrested on December 3, 2018. A charge sheet was filed against the five accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the first respondent’s bail application on April 10, 2019. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a bail application before the High Court of Rajasthan, which was allowed. The appellant then challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Sessions to grant bail. The Supreme Court also considered Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Penal Code), which pertain to rioting, armed rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, and robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, respectively.

Section 439 of the CrPC states that a High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person accused of an offense be released on bail. However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are:

• Section 147: “Punishment for rioting.”
• Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.”
• Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.”
• Section 302: “Punishment for murder.”
• Section 397: “Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was a prima facie case against the accused, given the gruesome nature of the murder, and that the High Court should not have granted bail.
• The High Court’s order was not reasoned and did not justify granting bail.
• The High Court failed to consider the statement of the sole eyewitness, Aashish, who implicated the accused in the murder.
• The post-mortem report showed twenty-seven ante-mortem injuries, indicating the severity of the assault.
• The deceased’s phone was recovered from one of the accused, Anil, and the bike involved in the incident was recovered from the first respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that the deceased was the aggressor in the initial altercation and that the deceased’s injuries were a result of falling off his bike.
• The first respondent had been in custody for five months based on a false allegation.
• The FIR and charge sheet did not establish a prima facie case against the accused to justify setting aside bail.
• The registration of an FIR against the friends of the accused had no bearing on the present case.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that the injuries were sustained because of the fall from the bike, and not because of the assault.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 of the CrPC to grant bail.
2. Whether the High Court’s order was reasoned and justified, considering the evidence and seriousness of the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to guide its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

Principles for Granting Bail:

• Ram Govind Upadhyay v Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, Supreme Court of India: This case outlined the principles that guide the Court in assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail.
• Ash Mohammad v Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• Ranjit Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 16 SCC 797, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• Neeru Yadav v State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• Virupakshappa Gouda v State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra, (2018) 10 SCC 516, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• Neeru Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 422, Supreme Court of India: This case distinguished between the principles for granting bail and for cancelling bail.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized the need for reasoned orders when granting bail, particularly in serious offenses.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Sessions to grant bail.
• Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections pertain to rioting, armed rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, and robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, respectively.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Ram Govind Upadhyay v Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]* which laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]* which outlined the principles that guide the Court in assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Ash Mohammad v Shiv Raj Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446]*, Ranjit Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2013) 16 SCC 797]*, Neeru Yadav v State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508]*, Virupakshappa Gouda v State of Karnataka [(2017) 5 SCC 406]*, and State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra [(2018) 10 SCC 516]* which reiterated the principles for granting bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Neeru Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015) 15 SCC 422]* which distinguished between the principles for granting bail and for cancelling bail.
• The Supreme Court followed Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]* which emphasized the need for reasoned orders when granting bail, particularly in serious offenses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Seriousness of the Offence: The Court noted the gruesome nature of the murder and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.
• Prima Facie Evidence: The Court found sufficient material to indicate a prima facie case against the accused, including the eyewitness testimony, the post-mortem report, and the recovery of the deceased’s belongings from the accused.
• Lack of Reasoning in the High Court’s Order: The Court criticized the High Court’s order for being perfunctory and lacking in detailed reasoning, indicating a non-application of mind.
• Principles of Bail: The Court emphasized that the power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s order, the evidence, and the legal principles to conclude that the High Court’s decision was flawed.

The Court rejected the alternative interpretation that the deceased fell from his bike, stating that it is not for the court to assess in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding on a chain of causation at the stage of bail. The Court emphasized that it is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, concluding that the High Court had failed to consider relevant factors and had not provided adequate reasoning for granting bail. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was perfunctory and did not adhere to the principles for granting bail as laid down in previous judgments.

The Supreme Court stated the following reasons for its decision:

• The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime.
• The High Court did not adequately consider the eyewitness testimony.
• The High Court did not take into account the post-mortem report, which indicated severe injuries.
• The High Court’s order was not reasoned and did not justify the grant of bail.

The judgment was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the decision to set aside the High Court’s order. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of a reasoned approach to bail decisions, emphasizing that High Courts must consider all relevant factors and provide detailed reasoning when granting bail, particularly in serious offenses. The judgment also highlights the need for a balance between individual liberty and the interests of the criminal justice system.

The implications for future cases are that High Courts will need to be more thorough in their assessment of bail applications, ensuring that they consider all relevant factors and provide detailed reasoning for their decisions. This judgment also reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that bail is not granted in a perfunctory manner, particularly in serious offenses.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. Instead, it reaffirmed the existing principles for granting bail as laid down in previous judgments. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between individual liberty and the interests of the criminal justice system.

The Court rejected the argument that the deceased fell from the bike, stating that it is not for the court to assess in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding on a chain of causation at the stage of bail. The Court emphasized that it is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility of the commission of the crime by the accused.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.”
• “It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non -application of mind, rendering it to be illegal…”
• “The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• Orders granting bail must be reasoned and must demonstrate an application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie evidence, and the potential for the accused to obstruct justice.
• The Supreme Court will not hesitate to set aside High Court orders that grant bail without proper consideration of the relevant factors.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on how bail applications are assessed in the future, particularly in serious criminal cases. It reinforces the importance of a reasoned and thorough approach to bail decisions, ensuring that individual liberty is balanced with the interests of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and that the five accused shall be taken into custody forthwith. A copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa District, Jhunjhunu and the police station concerned to secure compliance.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must exercise its discretion judiciously when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder. The High Court’s order must be reasoned and must demonstrate an application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in previous judgments and did not change the previous position of law. The Court emphasized the need for a balance between individual liberty and the interests of the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar sets aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offense, the evidence presented, and the need for a reasoned approach. This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough and balanced approach to bail decisions, ensuring that individual liberty is protected while also upholding the interests of the criminal justice system. The accused were ordered to be taken into custody forthwith.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Bail
• Murder
• Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure
• Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue is whether the High Court was right in granting bail to the accused in a murder case, considering the seriousness of the crime and the evidence presented.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not properly consider the seriousness of the crime, the evidence on record, and the principles governing the grant of bail.

Q: What is Section 439 of the CrPC?

A: Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Sessions to grant bail to a person accused of an offense.

Q: What did the High Court do wrong?

A: The High Court did not provide a reasoned order, did not consider the eyewitness testimony, and did not take into account the post-mortem report, which indicated severe injuries. The High Court’s order was perfunctory and did not adhere to the principles for granting bail.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that High Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously when granting bail, especially in serious offenses; orders granting bail must be reasoned; and courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie evidence, and the potential for the accused to obstruct justice.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of the case?

A: The ratio decidendi is that the High Court must exercise its discretion judiciously when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder. The High Court’s order must be reasoned and must demonstrate an application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.